Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Sugar Stocks, Willingale (Storage)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food if his attention has been called to the waste of sugar damaged by damp and rats while stored in dilapidated huts at the disused airfield at Willingale, Essex; how many tons of sugar have been spoiled; when this store was last officially inspected, and what report on its condition was submitted by the inspector; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): This sugar was not under my Department's control; I understand that it has been moved.

Mr. Driberg: Is the Minister interested at all if there is a serious waste of sugar? Does he make any representations?

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I am not responsible for the management of the British Sugar Corporation, which was, I think, the owner of the sugar. If the hon. Member is interested, perhaps he will apply to that corporation for information.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the Minister aware that this sugar is the residue of over 4,000 tons, and that, after 100 tons had been re-processed, only 37 cwts. out of the 4,000 tons were wasted?

Mr. Amory: I understand that the loss in this case was very small.

Mr. Driberg: Can the Minister say where the sugar was moved to or what happened to it?

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I am afraid that I cannot.

Slaughterhouses (Report)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Food when the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses will be published.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) on 25th October.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that a plan for the erection of slaughterhouses of all kinds is long overdue? Is he further aware that farmers, in the Midlands at least, are justifiably disturbed and perturbed at what they themselves term the inaction of the Government in this matter?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that there are any grounds for accusing the Government of inaction. As the hon. Member knows, the interim scheme is in operation now. There is a great deal for this Committee to look into at present, but as I told the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds), I think that we shall receive its report early next year.

Mr. Baldwin: Can the Minister speed up this matter? Is he aware that the delay in deciding the sites of slaughterhouses is leading to delay on the part of municipal authorities, because they fear that, after they have built a slaughterhouse, it may not be in the right place and so will cause a great deal of loss? It is hurting the trade in country towns.

Mr. Amory: We are all very anxious that not a day shall be lost, but the issues involved are quite complicated in detail.

Tea

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on his present policy with regard to the supply of tea for this country; and what effort was made to purchase tea crops early this year on a long-term bulk-buying contract to forestall the excessive prices now being charged by the growers.

Mr. Amory: It is the Government's policy to rely upon the efforts of private importers to obtain the tea we want; there is no intention of resuming Government purchase on long-term contracts.

Mr. Reid: Is it the policy of the Government—no matter what the conditions of supply and demand are—to leave the


matter entirely to the law of supply and demand, irrespective of the fact that at present common tea, which used to cost 6d. per lb., now costs 6s. a lb.? Surely that is a doctrinaire and disastrous policy?

Mr. Amory: I cannot agree. On the contrary, I think that that is the best policy. As the hon. Gentleman says, the price of tea is determined by demand in relation to supply, and no amount of Government control or Government bulk purchase would get away from that fact.

Miss Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman find out whether, by getting back to long-term bulk purchase, he could not get the ordinary business advantages that follow from such purchase? If that is not possible, will the right hon. Gentleman consider once again subsidising the price of tea? Does he not realise that tea is one of the most important factors in the lives of old-age pensioners and low wage earners?

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I think that even the last Government found that bulk purchases of tea were not possible after 1950. I think that they would be still less possible today. With regard to the second part of the hon. Lady's question, the answer is, "No, Sir." The Government do not consider that it would be a good plan to resume consumer subsidies on tea.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister's statement, that bulk buying would not be welcome under certain conditions, an accurate statement? Have not the Pakistan Government made representations in the matter?

Mr. Amory: I did not say it might not be welcome. I said it would not lead to a lower price for the consumer in this country.

Sir W. Darling: Has my right hon. Friend considered approaching the tea exporting countries to ask them to reduce the export levy, which is a very important factor?

Mr. Amory: There is a Question down to me later on that subject.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food what representations have been made to his Department regarding the recent depreciation in the quality and flavour of tea and asking him to reimpose price control.

Mr. Amory: None, Sir.

Mr. Collins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only has the price of the ordinary brands of tea increased from 3s. 2d. to 6s. 8d. a lb., but many people complain that the tea is not as good? If he does not intend to reintroduce bulk purchase or to reimpose a subsidy, what does he intend to do to see that people get a decent cup of tea at a fair price?

Mr. Amory: I have read in the papers reports to that effect, but I cannot quite understand them, because the teas which are in shortest supply are the cheapest and most common brands. The blenders are at present having to use higher qualities of tea for their blendings than would normally be used.

Mr. H. Wilson: Has the Minister seen the figures published recently in "The Economist" showing that the profits of the tea companies have risen from less than£1¾ million in 1952–53 to over £7 million in the past year? Is this not a very strong argument for reimposing price control?

Mr. Amory: Profits are high at one moment and low at another.

Preservatives (Antibiotic Drugs)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Food which of the antibiotic drugs are being used as preservatives in the food industry; and whether he will take steps to prohibit this practice.

Mr. Amory: I am not aware that any antibiotic drugs are being so used but if the hon. Member has any information and would send it to me, I will inquire further.

Dr. Stross: Is not the Minister aware that reports have been published of the use of antibiotics in order to reduce heat sterilisation time and temperature? Will he at least tell us that he is resolute in stating that they should not be used in our food because it would be against the best interests of public health?

Mr. Amory: Yes. Their use for preservative purposes would be against the law at present.

Civic Restaurants

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Food the total loss which has so far been incurred by the running of civic restaurants.

Mr. Amory: Local authorities are only required to submit accounts to me when their restaurants have made losses in each of three consecutive years, and then only if they seek permission to continue to trade. I regret therefore that the information asked for is not available to my Department.

Brigadier Medlicott: Can it be taken that the loss is considerable and is a good deal more than local authorities can afford?

Mr. Simmons: Is the Minister aware that Birmingham has run civic restaurants since the end of the war—Birmingham took over the wartime restaurants—and has made a profit every year, and that these restaurants have cost the taxpayers nothing?

Mr. Nabarro: A good Tory council.

Mr. Amory: That is a separate question from that on the Paper.

Foodstuffs (Colouring Matter)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food what progress has been made by the Food Standards Committee in its investigation into the problems connected with the using of colouring matters in food.

Mr. Amory: The Food Standards Committee has submitted a report on this subject. I hope to publish it early in the New Year.

Milk Deliveries (Rural Areas)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that, in sparsely populated country districts, consumers are unable to get a delivery of fresh milk, and in many instances have to rely on dried or tinned milk; and what steps he proposes to take to assist the provision of a retail delivery service to all districts.

Mr. Amory: My Department cannot accept responsibility for the daily supply of fresh milk to any particular household, but if my hon. Friend will let me have details of any area where there is no retail supply of fresh milk, I shall be glad to have inquiries made into the position.

Californian and Australian Raisins (Disposal)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Food (1) why a stock of Californian raisins, offered to British traders by his Department at a minimum price of £85 per ton, has been sold in Holland for £41 per ton on terms advantageous to the buyers; and
(2) why a stock of Australian Lexia raisins, bought by his Department at £85 per ton in 1953 and offered to British traders at around £70 per ton, has been sold to foreign traders at £30 per ton.

Mr. Amory: This fruit was old stock and, in accordance with sound commercial practice, was sold in bulk for the best price obtainable.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister answer two questions: first, was it offered to British traders at a price comparable with that at which it was eventually sold; and secondly, what was the total loss?

Mr. Amory: It was known in the trade that offers would be received for these stocks. I understand, however, that no offers for bulk quantities were received from traders in this country. In this case, it was important to clear the stock, and my Department was therefore anxious to sell it in bulk as quickly as possible. I am afraid I have no figure of the total loss, but if the hon. Member puts down a Question, I will try to obtain it.

Mr. Willey: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Press references to these transactions in which it was alleged that no offer was made to British merchants at these prices? Will the Minister explain how this has happened? If the Ministry is to make a loss, why should it make it in favour of foreigners and not in favour of our own people?

Mr. Amory: No offer was made by the Ministry at the particular prices, but the Department made it clear that bids would be received; but in fact no bids for bulk quantities were received from traders in this country. This method of disposing of the stock was chosen in the best interests of the taxpayer and of the consumer, bearing in mind certain obligations which the taxpayer had incurred for the fresh supplies coming along for the current year.

Mr. Bottomley: Why do the Government oppose bulk purchase when they are prepared to sell in bulk to the disadvantage of the taxpayer?

Mr. Amory: Unfortunately, these stocks were bought in bulk.

Dock Strikes (Losses)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Food what quantities of foodstuffs imported on his Department's account were found to be unfit for consumption as a result of the recent strike at the docks.

Mr. Amory: None so far, but inquiries are not yet complete.

Mr. Jeger: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply refer only to food within his Department's control, or has he any information about all food at the docks?

Mr. Amory: Only the food for which my Department was responsible. I am not in a position to say whether there was any loss—although there may well have been—in food which was not under the control of my Department.

Departmental Functions

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food what functions are still being carried out by his Department.

Mr. Amory: The functions are still the same as those set out by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on 14th April last.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the substantial increase in food prices since October, 1951, and the substantial increase in the number of persons poisoned as a result of eating food nowadays, is there not a very clear case for continuing the Ministry of Food in the vital interest of protecting the consumers? Will he ask the Prime Minister to reconsider this foolish idea of abolishing the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid the answer is "No" to both parts of the question.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although his original answer, to which he referred in his reply today, was satisfactory, his double negative today is very much more satisfactory?

Mr. Jay: Does the Minister recognise that he now has any responsibility for the welfare of the consumer?

Mr. Amory: Certainly I have, within the functions that remain to my Department.

Mr. Jay: Can the Minister tell us what would happen to these responsibilities if the Ministry of Food were abolished?

Mr. Amory: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait until our plans have matured for the transfer of responsibility to the new Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Bacteriological Warfare

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Supply if he will give facilities for hon. Members to visit the Bacteriological Research Station at Porton similar to those which were given to hon. Members to visit the Atomic Research Station at Harwell.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in recent diplomatic documents, including those signed in Paris and in London, there were frequent references to biological weapons, including toxic substances and insects, and does he not think that Members of the House of Commons have a right to know something about these weapons?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think the work carried out at this establishment is such that it could very easily be demonstrated to Members of Parliament.

Captain Duncan: Is it possible at this station to deposit bees in bonnets?

Dr. Summerskill: Could the Minister say whether his answer includes Members with scientific qualifications?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Supply, in view of the undertaking given by Dr. Adenauer that the manufacture of biological weapons, and the research into the use of harmful insects, or other living or dead organisms or their toxic products for war purposes will not be allowed in Germany, if he


will give a similar undertaking that these biological weapons will not be manufactured or purchased by his Department.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister think that this reticence is hiding something? [Laughter.] If hon. Members think that spreading typhus and cholera is funny, other people do not. In view of Dr. Adenauer's statement at the Paris Conference, does the Minister not think that this Government should be as civilised as Dr. Adenaeur?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the position in this matter was well stated by Mr. A. V. Alexander, as he then was, in 1948:
The possibility that bacteria may be used in a future war is not being overlooked. Researches are being conducted so that we may be ready to meet any situation which may arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1948, Vol. 451, c. 2166.]
Everything done at this establishment is purely for defensive purposes.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, among all the great nations in the world, the only one which has not ratified the Geneva Convention prohibiting the use of these weapons is the United States? Are we to infer from his answer that he is afraid——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot be responsible for the action of the United States.

Mr. Silverman: I hope that by the time I have finished my Question, Mr. Speaker, you and the Minister will appreciate its purpose. In view of the fact which I have stated, are we to take it from the Minister's previous answer that we are maintaining the research station in case of an attack from that quarter?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member knows the answer to that question quite well.

Mr. Silverman: Where is it from?

Steel Products and Supplies

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Supply what restrictions, allocations or rationing arrangements are still maintained by his Department on steel, steel products and tinplate; what these arrangements cost per annum; and whether he will end them at an early date.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Tinplate is the only iron and steel product the distribution of which is still under statutory control by my Department. The cost of the control is less than £6,000 a year. It will be removed as soon as the supply position justifies it.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the continuing high level of demand from all over the world for tinplate, will my right hon. and learned Friend have special regard to the position of the old hand-mills in South Wales, many of which are destined to be scrapped shortly, and in view of that high level of demand, will he not keep these in operation so far as possible within the course of the next two or three years?

Mr. Lloyd: The answer is "Yes." We shall have to rely on the production of the hand-mills for at least a year or two to meet current needs.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the lengthening deliveries to industry of steel and rolled and re-rolled steel products, in view of substantially Increased and increasing industrial output; whether he will state the estimated output of the British steel industry for each of the years 1954 and 1955; and whether he has formed an estimate as to whether total steel production in those years will match the needs of continuously expanding industrial output, without appreciable lengthening further of steel delivery times or increased imports.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am aware that difficulties have been experienced recently in meeting fully the demands for certain types of finished steel. The matter is receiving the constant attention of the Iron and Steel Board. The production of steel by the British steel industry in 1953 was equivalent to 17·61 million ingot tons. The board informs me that production in 1954 is expected to be approximately 18½ million ingot tons and, in 1955, 19¼ million ingot tons, or possibly more. On present indications, it seems likely that certain types of finished steel will have to be imported in 1955, but the quantities should only be marginal.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. and learned Friend have special regard to the very substantial expansion plans recently announced by many major engineering companies in this country, notably branches of the motor industry, all of which will cause a very large increase in demand for certain steel products, notably sheet steel, and can he assure the House that in the passage of the next two or three years the expansion of sheet steel production facilities will approximately be commensurate with the increased demands from expanding enginering works, notably in the motor industry?

Mr. Lloyd: We are having regard to the expanding demands. The total production of sheet steel in 1954 will be about 2 million tons, which is 11 per cent. higher than in 1953. We hope that production will continue to increase.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that firms using rolled steel sections are having to import Belgian steel on which there is a duty of 25 per cent., and will he consider relieving steel imports of this duty temporarily, as I understand was done in 1951–52?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that it is the case that the import duty on steel sheet is at present suspended. I will certainly examine the hon. Member's request.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does not this steadily rising level of production in this industry show with what contempt managers and workers alike treat the threat of re-nationalisation?

Mr. Bottomley: Will the Minister not agree that it was the policy of my right hon. Friend which enabled the 18 million tons production to be reached?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that it is better on the whole that we should regard this expanding production as not related to party politics.

Supersonic Bangs (Damage)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Supply what parts of the country are affected by claims made for damage to property arising from supersonic flights.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The counties of Surrey, Hampshire and Sussex each

account for about one-quarter of the claims received. The remaining quarter come from 15 counties, mainly in Southern England.

Oral Answers to Questions — BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION, KIRKBY

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Minister of Health when he expects to be able to establish an office in Kirkby, near Liverpool, for the registration of births and deaths.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): An office has been established at Kirkby since last May.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Cancer

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make available statistical evidence comparing the incidence of lung cancer in urban areas and rural areas, respectively, and his conclusions showing what connection exists between smoke, fog and lung cancer.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Statistics of mortality from cancer of the lung in aggregates of urban areas and rural areas are published each year in the Registrar General's Annual Reviews. While these show a definite increase in mortality in the more built-up areas, I am advised that they do not justify any firm conclusion on the question of a connection between smoke, fog and lung cancer.

Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any intensive research is being undertaken into the detailed figures of particular areas which are highly susceptible to fog and smoke, and if there is not much being done in that way, will he recognise the urgency of doing something about it?

Mr. Macleod: There is a good deal of research going on with regard to this particular point, both by the Medical Research Council and the British Empire Cancer Campaign.

Dr. Stross: Has the Minister any further information, as smoke includes cigarette smoke, whether the incidence therefrom is now proven?

Mr. Macleod: I am trying to make it a rule in this difficult matter not to speculate, because there are many theories and I think that it would not be wise to do so.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement giving the results of his circular requesting hospitals to do everything possible to achieve the registration of all cases of cancer.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 19th October.

Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the answer again? Does he recollect that on 18th March he told me that he expected a registration of 58,000 for 1953, but he did not give any of that information in his answer in October? I am asking for the results.

Mr. Macleod: I answered this question on 19th October, and I really cannot ask all hospital authorities for a report every week or two on a matter like this. I am quite certain that they are carrying out the different instructions, as I have asked them to do, and when I have any information of value to give to the House I will certainly give it.

Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of hospitals, wherever the relatives do not object, obtaining details of the case history and the dietary habits of persons who die of cancer? Is he aware that two relations of mine have died of it in the last few years and, as far as I know, no questions were asked of me or of any of my relations about the history of these people, how they lived, what habits they had and what they ate, which I think would have been most helpful?

Mr. Macleod: It might be helpful, but it is a very different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the Minister recollect that on 18th March he said he has asked for reports by 30th June and that he expected the number would be 58,000? Does that mean that he has not got one report?

Mr. Macleod: No, I have given the reports that I have already referred to in response to Questions in the House, including in particular the Question by the hon. Member on 19th October.

Chiropody Services

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health the circumstances which preclude a local authority from providing chiropody treatment, especially for old people, while a voluntary body may do this from funds provided for meals for old people and get a grant from the local authority to make up their funds.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): A local authority requires my right hon. Friend's approval to provide a chiropody service under the National Health Service Act as part of its arrangements for the prevention of illness, care and after care; for financial reasons it has not been possible ao approve extensions of this service.

Mrs. Slater: Is the hon. Lady aware that between 25 and 70 per cent. of old people need chiropody treatment and that most of these should have the treatment in their own homes in order to keep them on their feet and relieve the strain of ill-health on the other medical services; and as the provision of meals is really a service which touches only a very small proportion of the people in the large industrial areas, will she not ask her right hon. Friend to look at this matter again?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend fully appreciates the help to old people which this service would be, but there are other priorities confronting the National Health Service at the present time and it has not been found possible to enable other authorities to provide this treatment.

Mr. Marquand: In Scotland, apparently, there is plenty of money available, because local authorities there are providing this treatment. Is the hon. Lady satisfied that England and Wales should lag behind Scotland in this matter?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Certainly not.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health how many local health authorities have made representations to him with a view to the provision by him of chiropody services, particularly for old people: and whether he will give an estimate of the cost of such provision to the whole of the country.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Sixteen authorities have approached my right hon. Friend. The national cost would be about a £1 million annually.

Dr. Stross: In view of the fact that perhaps much more money might be spent than this £1 million if people who are thereby unable to get about have to use the hospital service for long stays in hospital beds, does not the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend think that this might have sufficient priority to be given immediate consideration?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am afraid I cannot add any more to the comment I made to the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), who asked me a similar question. Whilst we realise the value of this service, we feel there are higher and more urgent priorities at the present time, and we are not able to provide this further £1 million.

Mr. Marquand: Would not the cost of this service represent £500,000 to the local authorities and only £500,000 to the Exchequer?

Dr. Stross: Owing to the fact that the answer is not satisfactory, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Dental Attendants

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Health the terms and conditions under which dental nurses are employed in clinics administered by local authorities and dental hospitals; and how these compare with terms and conditions applicable to ordinary nurses and clerks in the Health Service.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I assume my hon. Friend has in mind dental attendants, whose duties consist in the main of general attendance on the dentist in his clinical work. Their work is not comparable with that of nurses. The scale for dental attendants rises from £160 a year at the age of 16 to a maximum of £320 a year. The normal working week is 39 hours. The women's scale for the basic clerical grade is £165 a year at the age of 16 rising to a maximum of £335 a year where duties are wholly simple routine, or otherwise to a maximum of £380 a year. The normal working week is 38 hours.

Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend look into this matter at his convenience and bear in mind that there is a good deal of discontent among this limited number of people who seem to be neither nurses nor clerks and get paid worse than both?

Mr. Macleod: I will certainly look into any problem, but the questions which my hon. Friend raises of allocation to a particular grade and payment in that grade are for the Whitley Council.

Prescriptions (Private Patients)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Health the average cost per person of pharmaceutical medicines prescribed under the National Health Service during the past financial year, after allowing for the prescription charge; what is the estimated number of private patients; and what is the estimated cost of extending to private patients the right for which they pay of obtaining medicine on the same basis as National Health Service patients.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The answer to the first part of the Question is about 19s. Precise estimates as requested in the second and third part of the Question are not available. Nor is my right hon. Friend clear what the hon. Member has in mind when he refers to the right for which private patients pay.

Mr. Hall: Would the hon. Lady agree that, whatever the cost may be to the State, it would have to be met if all private patients became registered with National Health doctors, and whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to discourage private patients by imposing this additional penalty?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I would not accept the hon. Member's assumption at all. The fact remains that there are higher priorities to be met when additional funds are available in the Health Service than this particular concession. The Health Service is not denied anybody. It is their own choosing if they do not take it.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Health what was the evidence referred to in the report of the Committee on General Practice in the National Health Service which led the Committee to the conclusion that many doctors who wish to use the National Health Service to prescribe for private patients are unwilling to enter into any contract with or to


submit to any conditions within the Service.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The proceedings of the Committee were confidential and my right hon. Friend is not in a position to supply any information on this point.

Mr. Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Medical Association informed the Cohen Committee that private practitioners would be quite willing to accept similar conditions to those which are at the moment imposed under the National Health Service? In those circumstances, why could they not be considered?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: That is another question. The fact remains that in an investigation to which many authorities presented evidence, some of which have published it and others have not, the Committee, without any disclaimers, recorded a unanimous decision, which my right hon. Friend accepted.

Dr. Summerskill: Would the hon. Lady not agree that to accept the hon. Member's proposition would undermine the structure of the National Health Service and would be calculated to encourage extravagant prescribing?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I do not wholly accept all that the right hon. Lady says.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Health if he will now amend the National Health Service Act, 1946, so as to allow those who elect to become private patients to utilise the other facilities provided by the Act.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to prescribing for private patients, and on this question I am not in a position to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 22nd July.

Mr. Hall: Have the Government abandoned the policy which the Conservative Party announced in "The Right Road for Britain" in 1949, that private patients should be allowed drugs on the same basis as all other contributors to the Health Service?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: When my hon. Friend refers to contributors to the Health Service, I must emphasise that the greater part of the cost of the Health

Service is paid for by taxation and not by insurance contributions. I can only repeat that that proposal is a concession which would cost a substantial amount and that at the moment there are higher priorities.

Dr. Summerskill: Would the hon. Lady agree that to allow this concession would make it necessary for her right hon. Friend to exercise control over the doctors who practise privately?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Certainly, I would agree with that.

Mass Radiography

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Health how many persons were examined under mass radiography schemes in England and Wales during the years 1951, 1953 and the first nine months of 1954.

Mr. Iain Macleod: About 2¼ million and 2¾ million persons were examined in 1951 and 1953, respectively. Figures for the third quarter of 1954 are not yet available, but the estimated number of persons examined in the first six months of the year is 1,768,000.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that there is no shortage of equipment for this purpose and that reasonable progress is being made?

Mr. Macleod: The figures indicate that reasonable progress is being made, because they show a steady climb. The figure is up by at least half, and this year looks very good indeed. I should not like to say that we could not use more equipment. We can always do that.

Sanitary Inspectors

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to overcome the existing shortage of sanitary inspectors.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is consulting with the bodies principally concerned regarding the recommendations of the working party on the recruitment, training and qualification of sanitary inspectors, which include suggestions for improving recruitment.

Blind Babies

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Health how many babies have been registered as blind for each year since 1945.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


REGISTER OF THE BLIND


NUMBER OF NEWLY REGISTERED BLIND UNDER THE AGE OF ONE YEAR


Year ending 31st March, 1945
…
12


Year ending 31st March, 1946
…
18


Year ending 31st March, 1947
…
17


Year ending 31st March, 1948
…
23


Year ending 31st March, 1949
…
21


Year ending 31st March, 1950
…
34


Year ending 31st March, 1951
…
44


Year ending 31st March, 1952
…
74


Nine months to 31st December, 1952
…
42


Year ending 31st December, 1953
…
55

Personal Case

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the certification of a constituent of the hon. Member for Coventry, North took place in accordance with the Lunacy Act, in view of the particulars which have been sent to him; why he has refused to give the wife of the constituent sight of the documents of certification; and whether he will inquire into the matter in order to ascertain whether the constituent referred to was, in fact, legally committed.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I have no reason to think that the correct procedure was not followed in this case. The documents relating to certification are confidential, but the patient has been informed of his statutory right to free copies of the documents, if he considers himself to have been unjustly detained. As the hon. Member is aware, I have already inquired fully into this case and satisfied myself that the procedure followed was in conformity with the law.

Mr. Edelman: Is the Minister aware that the wife of my constituent denies absolutely the statements attributed to her in the documents of certification, and that her husband was whisked away from home at only one hour's notice? In view of the circumstances, will the

Minister not look into this matter and, if necessary, open a formal inquiry, in the light of the very clouded circumstances which surround this case?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member knows perfectly well about these events, which occupied only a week or two in 1951. I have already looked into them with the greatest care. The hon. Member knows perfectly well from my answer that the patient has been told that, if he wants them, he can have a copy of the documents. The lunacy laws are extremely difficult and complicated, but if there is a matter of interpretation which the hon. Member would like to discuss with me, perhaps he will come and see me.

Dental Treatment, Birmingham

Mr. Yates: asked the Minister of Health what dental facilities are available in Birmingham for children who are suffering pain and require emergency treatment.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Treatment may be obtained from dental practitioners under the general dental services, or in school clinics or in hospitals with dental departments.

Mr. Yates: Does not the Minister think it disgraceful that one child in my constituency should have to go to eight dentists, each of whom declined to extract the tooth, and that even the dental hospital would not take it out, so that the child remained six days in pain? Will he not take some action to see that this does not occur again?

Mr. Macleod: I know the case to which the hon. Member refers, and I am looking into it. It was not regarded by the hospital as a true emergency, whether rightly or wrongly, but the difficulty is that whereas doctors have lists and there is the tradition of the family doctor, dentists do not have people on their lists and, therefore, there is not the same link between their patients which I should like to see.

Mr. Yates: But does the Minister not consider that, in the case of a dental hospital, there should be an opportunity for children who are really suffering pain—particularly when parents take a child on two occasions—to have real emergency treatment?

Mr. Macleod: I should like to see rotas of dentists for emergency cases. I have suggested that in all areas. I suggested it in Birmingham, but the Birmingham dentists refused to undertake it. I cannot go further at this particular moment.

Mr. Yates: asked the Minister of Health how many dental patients are awaiting treatment at the Birmingham Dental Hospital; and how long it will be before the present waiting list is dealt with.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The total number waiting is 2,595 and the waiting periods vary according to the department from one day to 18 months.

Mr. Yates: Does the Minister not realise that the position here is much worse than it was when I raised the matter about six months ago? What opportunity is there in Birmingham, with a population of over one million, of dealing with this long waiting list? Cannot something be done? Is it not possible to have more accommodation instead of this overcrowded "barber's shop" in Birmingham?

Mr. Macleod: As a matter of fact, in the last few weeks, actually on the 5th of this month, I authorised further work to be carried out which will help the Birmingham Dental Hospital, although not in some of the worst cases; and it hopes to have this work in operation by the end of this financial year.

Mr. G. Jeger: If the Minister is encountering a certain amount of opposition on the part of the Birmingham dentists, could he not make use of the Army Dental Service to supplement the local dental services during this emergency period?

Dental Schools (Students)

Mr. Fort: asked the Minister of Health the intake of students for the last three terms in the dental schools of England and Wales.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The intake of students in the academic year 1953–54 was, my right hon. Friend understands, of the order of 400.

Mr. Fort: Can my hon. Friend tell me how this compares with the number that the Teviot Committee hoped would be

forthcoming in order to secure a proper dental service in this country?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is, I am afraid, substantially less, and my right hon. Friend has the matter under very close consideration.

Administration Costs

Mr. Fort: asked the Minister of Health what percentage of total expenditure on the National Health Service is accounted for by the cost of administration.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Of the total expenditure on the National Health Service, other than expenditure incurred by local health authorities, in 1952–53, administration costs of my Department and services rendered by other Departments represented about ½ per cent. and those of executive councils and certain other statutory bodies and of hospital authorities at central offices about 2¼ per cent. It is estimated that the addition of administration costs incurred by hospital authorities inside the hospitals, for which separate details are not available, might bring the total figure for administration costs to a little over 4 per cent.

Serpasil

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health, to what extent the drug Serpasil is being used in this country for the treatment of mental disorders; whether clinical trials have yet taken place, and with what result; and if he has any further information on the matter.

Mr. Iain Macleod: This drug is not in general use as it is still in the experimental stage. Clinical trials are in progress in two centres, but no results are yet available.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that there have been rather sweeping claims for the American equivalent of this drug, and does he not agree that before raising hopes too high we should go very thoroughly into the possibilities?

Mr. Macleod: I always like to do that in connection with any drug, particularly in view of certain unhappy experiences of late.

Mr. J. N. Browne: What is the effect of this drug?

Mr. Macleod: It is supposed to exert a calming effect on the central nervous system. I am thinking of prescribing it for the Labour Party Executive.

Food Poisoning

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the concern at the increase of food poisoning cases, from 3,519 in 1952 to 5,277 in 1953; and what action he proposes to take to deal with the matter.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. Where these incidents occur they usually indicate poor food hygiene or faulty practice in food factories and kitchens. The Minister of Food and I will continue to encourage local authorities in their efforts to ensure by publicity and education that high standards of food hygiene are practised by the food industry, the catering industry and food handlers generally, and as soon as the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill comes into operation we shall jointly make food hygiene regulations to strengthen the hands of the local authorities in this matter.

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this matter underlines the folly of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Food in surrendering to the pressure groups, resulting in the abandonment of the registration of catering establishments?

Mr. Macleod: We discussed that matter very fully in the Bill, and I am afraid I could not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we shall never make Great Britain clean by Act of Parliament, but only by the weight of public opinion?

Dr. Summerskill: As the right hon. Gentleman has already said that many of these cases can be attributed to dirty kitchens and restaurants, could he not agree that registration of these places would be the right approach?

Mr. Macleod: We have debated the matter many times, as the right hon. Lady knows perfectly well. She takes one point of view. I frankly disagree. I think the present Bill will be workable. I do not think that some of the suggestions which the Opposition would have liked adopted would work.

Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend believe me when I tell him that hundreds of small boardinghouse keepers in Morecambe and other seaside resorts are delighted that he has removed this interference with their very good behaviour?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Teaching Hospitals, Liverpool (Margarine)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Health whether it is upon his instructions that the Liverpool Board of Governors, Teaching Hospitals, has decided to issue margarine to all patients instead of butter.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir.

Mrs. Braddock: Will the Minister ask the board to look at this position again? It has caused great concern among patients in teaching hospitals that this arbitrary decision has been taken. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although I am a member of the board and I tried desperately to get one of the other members to second my proposal for a reconsideration of the position, not one of the eminent doctors upon the board was prepared to take any responsibility in having the matter reconsidered? Will the Minister ask the board to reconsider the whole position?

Mr. Macleod: I was informed of the hon. Lady's difficulties in obtaining a seconder for her proposal. I do not propose to second it myself.

Mrs. Braddock: I asked whether the Minister was prepared to ask the board to reconsider the decision in view of the fact that this is not a decision which he has decided should be put into operation.

Mr. Macleod: I am sorry; my answer was meant to cover that. The answer is, "No." This is a matter entirely within the competence of the regional board.

Mrs Braddock: It is not a regional board. It is a board of governors.

Mental Hospitals (Accommodation)

Mr. Wade: asked the Minister of Health what progress he has to report on the provision of adequate accommodation for patients in mental hospitals.

Mr. Iain Macleod: About 5,000 additional beds in mental and mental deficiency hospitals have been provided since 1948. Capital works authorised but not yet completed will provide another 7,000.

Mr. Wade: In view of the reports of overcrowding, particularly since the recent publication of the Hospitals Year Book, can the Minister say how widespread is the overcrowding and whether the main problem is lack of accommodation or lack of staff?

Mr. Macleod: It is probably both. If the hon. Member would like details about different regions, perhaps he will put a Question down, but he will see from the answer I have given that the position is getting a good deal better. Although we have provided only 5,000 beds in the last six years, we now have no less than 7,000 in the pipeline

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that in many hospitals overcrowding has occasioned a waiting list of voluntary patients? Does he not think it most unfortunate that now that we have persuaded the public to accept the principle of voluntary admission, we now have to ask patients to wait to be admitted?

Mr. Macleod: I entirely agree. That is by far the most distressing part of overcrowding in mental hospitals.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that, within the limits of their capital resources and having regard to the needs of other branches of the hospital service, regional hospital boards are making a sufficient proportionate allocation of capital to mental deficiency hospitals.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I have no reason to think that boards are failing to do this.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that in many of the older mentally deficient institutions there are arrears of maintenance from before 1948 with which it is impossible to catch up, and when he is considering future possible special allocations, will he have regard not merely to the need to provide additional accommodation, but for something special to meet this need for extra maintenance which, in the long run, will result in the saving of money?

Mr. Macleod: I will take that matter into account when I make my calculations.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would my right hon. Friend ask the hon. Gentleman to rewrite his Question in the hope that it may be put down next time in better English?

Mr. Snow: Is the Minister satisfied that the facilities offered by such organisations as the Marlborough Day Hospital in London are well known to regional hospital boards, since these facilities can provide great economy and a great alleviation of unhappiness among patients and their relatives?

Mr. Macleod: That and other interesting experiments, I am quite certain, are well known to psychiatrists and others who have this particular responsibility in the region.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if he will estimate how much money will be available within the Mental Million Scheme for 1955–56 for new capital developments not yet authorised; and how much will be needed to finance the carry-over of developments already authorised and started in the current financial year.

Mr. Iain Macleod: About £1·3 million will be required in 1955–56 for schemes authorised under the "Mental Million" programme in 1954–55. It will not be possible to start any new projects under these arrangements in 1955–56.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very disappointing answer, in view of the fact that the implication of the reply that he gave in July was that there would be another £1 million available for new schemes in the current year? Cannot he look into this unhappy position again, and possibly consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Macleod: As my answer indicates, we are going to spend more than £1 million next year, just as we are spending almost £1 million this year on these schemes. Quite apart from that, there are the normal allocations from the regional hospital boards, and in addition there are large schemes like those at


Greaves Hall, Southport, and Balderton which are being financed centrally by myself.

Mr. Chapman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in Birmingham, where the figures of the work being done and authorised are well below the target set, he can do anything to get the whole matter speeded up?

Mr. Macleod: The fact—whether it be the fault of my Department or of Birmingham—that the Birmingham expenditure at the moment is below this allocation does not mean that Birmingham will lose any of it. It merely means that it is going to be extended into next year.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health the present accommodation for mentally deficient children in Warwickshire; what are the numbers awaiting entry into institutions at the latest convenient date; and what are his plans for increasing the present accommodation.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Seven hundred and eighty beds are provided in the area of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board as a whole, but none is specially reserved for Warwickshire children. On 17th November, 58 children from the administrative county were awaiting admission. It is hoped that work will shortly begin on a scheme to provide one 50-bedded ward wholly for mentally deficient children and on another scheme to provide two 50-bedded wards, part of which will be available for mentally defective children.

Mr. Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman help the county council in this matter in every way possible? Is he aware that in cases where admittance is refused, the home conditions are worsened and the health of the mothers, of course, deteriorates?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I quite agree, and I should be delighted to consult the county council on any details.

Visiting Hours (Parents)

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Health how many hospitals in England and Wales are now allowing the daily visiting of children by their

parents; and whether he is satisfied that every effort is being made to facilitate this visiting.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No recent information is available, but I have asked for reports from all hospital boards by the end of the year.

Surplus Properties

Mr. Stevens: asked the Minister of Health how many hospitals previously owned by local authorities but found surplus to the requirements of the National Health Service were offered back to their previous owners between 6th July, 1953, and 31st December, 1953; and upon what terms the offers were made.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Parts of two such hospitals were declared surplus during the period mentioned and were offered back under the usual arrangements governing the disposal of Government property, the terms being settled with the district valuer. In three other cases, properties which had been declared surplus prior to 5th July, 1953, and fell, therefore, to be dealt with under a concession allowed during the first five years of the National Health Service, were offered during the same period to the former owning authorities for a nominal sum.

Mr. Stevens: In respect of the first two cases, was there not unnecessary delay in coming to a conclusion? The concessionary period was five years, and the Ministry did not reach a decision until a few months after the close of the concessionary period.

Mr. Macleod: I will look at the details of the two cases but, as my hon. Friend knows, it was a limited period of concession, which expired in July, 1953.

Sir J. Lucas: How many protests were made, more particularly on grounds of unnecessary delay, and what action has been taken?

Mr. Macleod: I should like notice of that question.

Tuberculosis Treatment

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Minister of Health the average waiting time in each of the hospital areas in England and Wales before tuberculous patients


who have been advised and are willing to undergo an operation for re-section of ribs are admitted to hospital and operated on.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret that the information is not readily available.

Sir D. Robertson: Is the waiting time similar to that in the north of Scotland, where it is anything from a year and a half to three years? Do these areas work as watertight compartments, or if areas are hard pressed are they relieved by other areas which are not so hard pressed?

Mr. Macleod: I doubt whether I could get the information that my hon. Friend wants. Not only would it involve an inquiry of all hospitals of this nature, but they would have to search their records for these cases. I will see whether there is any more information which I can give my hon. Friend. As far as I know, from time to time areas do help, on call, other areas in their vicinity which are hard pressed.

Sir D. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend confer with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland with a view to overcoming this appalling delay, which must involve human life in a very serious way, and so relieve the position in the far north of Scotland?

Mr. Macleod: I will certainly see whether anything can be done, but I cannot think that facilities in England and Wales would really be of very much help to people in the north of Scotland.

General Practitioners (Beds)

Mr. Fort: asked the Minister of Health how many hospital beds in England and Wales are available to general practitioners for the treatment of their patients.

Mr. Iain Macleod: At the end of 1953, the latest date for which figures are available, the numbers of staffed beds allocated to general practitioner maternity and medical units were 2,036 and 6,524, respectively.

Mr. Fort: Can my right hon. Friend say whether that shows any marked increase or decrease over the previous year?

Mr. Macleod: I am afraid I cannot. I looked at previous records with that idea in mind, but they were kept on rather a different basis. The only estimate there is, which is very rough, is that there has been no significant change.

Pharmacists (Report)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the widespread demand among hospital pharmacists that the full text of the Linstead Report be published and if he will reconsider his decision not to publish it.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am perfectly prepared to publish it, if that is the general wish. But I have first to consult the Central Health Services Council and the other advisory bodies concerned. This I am now doing.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that this reply will give great satisfaction to hospital pharmacists, who began to think there was something to hide?

Blood Transfusion Sets (Complaints)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health how many regional blood transfusion centres have installed the new equipment for blood transfusion; and how many complaints have been received by him, in addition to the complaint from Stoke-on-Trent, that the design of the new apparatus does not take into account the possibility of the blood having a considerable amount of gel in it.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Four centres covering five regional hospital board areas. Two other complaints have been received in my Department, but neither mentioned this particular criticism which the new set is designed to meet.

Dr. Stross: Does that answer mean that the Minister is now satisfied that these new sets are working quite well, and that they may be left as they are without any further improvement?

Mr. Macleod: No. They do not seem to have been wholly satisfactory under pressure, which I think is the point the hon. Member had in mind. We are carrying out certain modifications, and where we issue new sets we still test them in as much detail as we can, which, I think, should cover the point.

Spastic Children, West Midlands

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the shortage of accommodation for spastic children in the West Midlands; and what steps he is taking in this matter.

Mr. Iain Macleod: According to my information, there is no special shortage of hospital beds for the treatment of spastic children except for those who are also mentally defective. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education is now conducting a national survey of physically handicapped, including spastic, children who may require education in special schools.

Langstone Sanatorium

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that his Department did not offer Langstone Sanatorium back to the Portsmouth City Council when it was no longer required; and whether he will now use his discretionary powers to vary the price demanded to the one legally payable if it had been so offered.

Mr. Iain Macleod: My hon. Friend is mistaken. My Department received from the regional hospital board in February, 1954, a recommendation that this sanatorium should be regarded as surplus to requirements. This was agreed in April, 1954, and the property offered shortly afterwards to the corporation under the usual arrangements governing the disposal of Government property, the terms to be settled with the district valuer. The concession whereby property previously owned by a local authority might be offered back to them for a nominal sum applied only to property declared surplus during the first five years of the Health Service, i.e. before 5th July, 1953.

Sir J. Lucas: As the hospital was not used except for storage purposes for two years previously, either due to forgetfulness or lack of foresight, which was regarded as highly suspicious by the local public, will my right hon. Friend consider holding a public inquiry into this matter?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I have looked into the matter carefully and have received a deputation from my two hon. Friends, but I cannot go further than the answer which I have given today.

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Minister of Health how much has been spent by his Department on the maintenance and repair of Langstone Sanatorium between the time it was no longer required for its proper use, and the time it was offered to Portsmouth Corporation; and at what state of repair it now is.

Mr. Iain Macleod: A sum of £1,423. I understand that the property is now watertight, but is in need of general overhaul and redecoration.

Regional Boards (Expenditure)

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Health the cost of the hospital service under the National Health Service for each of the 14 regional hospital boards in England and Wales for the years ended 31st March, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954, giving for each year the amount budgeted and the amount spent for capital and maintenance, respectively.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am sending the hon. Member the detailed information for which he asks.

Chest Clinic, Edmonton

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Health how many of the patients at present attending the Edmonton chest clinic are residents in the urban district of Enfield.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Eight hundred and ninety-one of the 1,976 patients at present registered at the clinic.

Mr. Albu: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how urgent this matter is? Can he say when the officers of his Department will visit this chest clinic, as he promised me last week?

Mr. Macleod: As to the second part of the supplementary question, that is being arranged at once. I saw to it immediately after Question time last week. As for the other part of the supplementary, I realise that this matter is urgent, and it is hoped to provide these facilities at the North Middlesex Hospital.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a large number of these residents at Enfield who attend the clinic have to journey a considerable distance, and that when they get to the hospital the accommodation


facilities are inadequate? Will he bear this in mind when he considers this proposed capital expenditure?

Mr. Macleod: The population of 200,000 between Enfield and Edmonton, which is looked after at this clinic, is not excessive for such a chest clinic. What are bad are the facilities which, as the hon. Gentleman says, are inadequate. We are taking that matter into account.

Swindon

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Minister of Health if he will provide funds in 1954–55 for the building of the long-promised, and long-delayed, general hospital for Swindon.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am afraid that no funds are available in 1954–55 for this purpose.

Birmingham Child (Specialist Treatment)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the history in the treatment of Miss J. Higginson, 7, Milcote Road, Birmingham, 29, about which he has been in correspondence with the hon. Member for the Northfield Division of Birmingham, and of the distress of her parents, he will now arrange for an independent specialist to examine this child and advise as to further treatment.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am well aware of this distressing case. If the parents feel, as I understand they do, that a further specialist opinion is desirable, the normal way to secure this is through their family doctor; but I am only too willing lo help in any way I properly can, and I will

certainly look into this again to see if there is anything more which I can do.

Loans

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Health whether he will permit regional hospital boards to borrow money for the construction of new buildings.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. This would not accord with normal Exchequer practice in such cases.

Mr. Marquand: But is the right hon. Gentleman willing to agree that there are many worth-while, sensible projects of the regional boards which he has been obliged to refuse because of a monetary limitation? Would it not be reasonable at a time when shops and offices can now be built quite freely to depart from orthodox Exchequer practice?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. One must maintain the present position, certainly at this stage while the Guillebaud Committee is considering this as one of the most important matters within its remit. It is also right to remember that if we adopt a loan charge system the ultimate burden will be greater.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN

John Victor Woollam, Esquire, for Liverpool, West Derby.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crook-shank.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

3.33 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
In moving this Motion, I should like to express to the House my regret and that of the Government that there should be so many Amendments on the Order Paper for consideration. There are, in fact, 152, but as hon. Members who have studied the Order Paper will have seen, the vast majority of them are of a drafting character and embody much that was asked for during the earlier stages of the Bill in this House.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: As one of the "old boys" who have been considering this Bill, I should like to welcome the new team which is appearing for the Government in debate on it. While congratulating them, at the same time I should like to commiserate with them because, as far as the Bill is concerned, those to be congratulated are those who have escaped having to deal with it any more. It is true that a large number of the 152 Lords Amendments are purely drafting Amendments, and I am obliged to the Minister for his courtesy in allowing me and my hon. Friends to have some notes which have helped us in considering them. The Amendments, however, also raise some matters of considerable substance and of controversy. They cannot be dealt with as the more numerous Amendments on the Mines and Quarries Bill were dealt with on Friday.
The drafting Amendments on the Bill are not just little things one can pass by with a nod. The drafting of the Bill raises matters of very considerable complexity, which have been discussed at great length in Committee and on the Report stage. Now we have Amendments broughts forward again for consideration—new Amendments raising new matters, new subsections and Schedules, and so on. Three Schedules which were in the Bill originally have been dropped.

One of those was never explained at all, for the very simple reason that it was inexplicable. It was withdrawn during the Report stage, and we now have, if not instead of it, at least another Schedule somewhat similarly headed. That again requires a great deal of explanation and consideration before we on this side of the House can be satisfied about it.
The Bill will have to be administered by local authorities throughout the country, by professional gentlemen, solicitors, surveyors and others, who are entitled to have a Bill which is reasonably understandable. The difficulty with the Bill is that it is so incomprehensible. I am sure that the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) will agree with me when I say that I do not think that I have ever seen a Bill which contained such a jumble of gibberish as did this Bill. An hon. Member on the other side of the House, who is extremely well versed in these affairs——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member seems to be straying a little from the Question, which is, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered." He is quite entitled to talk about the Lords Amendments, but not about the Bill, which has already passed through both Houses.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit for your consideration that I am entitled to remark, not on the contents of the Bill, but on the desirability or undesirability of dealing with a Bill so soon after it comes to us from another place. I have expressed gratitude for the courtesy of the Minister in giving me notes, but this is a Bill which not only has to be considered by my hon. and right hon. Friends here but has to be considered in conjunction with local authorities and professional gentlemen who have to apply the provisions of the Bill in the country. I was addressing my mind to the peculiar quality of the Bill which makes it desirable that we should have appreciably more time for consideration, in consultation with others, before it comes to the House.
By way of illustrating that, I was remarking that one hon. Gentleman opposite, who has the respect of us all, who is thoroughly well versed in the Bill


and has had the assistance of professional bodies, proposed something which I have never seen done anywhere else. He proposed the omission of a Clause to achieve the very purpose which was achieved by the inclusion of the Clause as it stood. That is extraordinary. It is the kind of thing with which we have to deal in connection with the Bill. On another occasion, a Minister justified a Clause by a statement of policy which, after probing, he had to retract because it was the very opposite of the policy of the Clause which he sought to justify. I am not blaming the Minister. One cannot expect the Minister, with all his ability, to comprehend the incomprehensible, but that was the position.
Extensive alterations are brought into the Bill at this stage. It is a Measure which has to be applied by professional men throughout the country, but we have had no adequate time for consideration with them and with local authorities, who also will have to work it. The least we can do is to protest against the very little time we have had to prepare ourselves for the numerous and substantial Amendments brought forward.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). If it were in order, I should have liked to move that the Lords Amendments be sent back to the other place for the Lords to reconsider the whole thing afresh.
We spent a considerable time in Standing Committee trying to understand the very complicated Clauses and principles embodied in the Bill. We thought that, as a result of our deliberations, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to have many of the difficulties we faced in Standing Committee very much simplified when the Bill was in another place. Instead of the Bill coming back in a more simplified form, we have 152 Lords Amendments to consider which, in the opinion of many of us, makes the Bill much more confused and complicated than ever before.
To allocate to this House roughly three hours to consider the implications of 152 Amendments to an almost unintelligible Bill is really inadequate. I am very disappointed that the Lords did not considerably simplify the provisions of the Bill and send us Amendments which would have achieved that purpose. We should

be prepared to send the Lords Amendments back again and to ask for an entire simplification of the Bill.

Mr. James MacColl: The House is called upon to perform three rather different functions. First, it has to try to understand the Amendments which have come from another place, then to understand what affect an Amendment has on the Clause in the Bill to which it relates, and, thirdly, whether or not it agrees with that intention.
In the short time I have had to look at the Lords Amendments, I have not yet succeeded in discharging the first function. In many cases I have found it extremely difficult to understand what the proposed Amendments mean. When one goes through the Amendments in the hope of getting some enlightenment by looking at specific Clauses of the Bill, one finds the position even worse, because one has a comprehensive footnote to something which is already incomprehensible. It becomes even more difficult to make up one's mind whether or not one agrees with what it is proposed to do.
In judging whether or not one has had sufficient time to look at the Amendments, it is only fair to take into account the background of the Bill and the background against which it has been discussed. We started with the Second Reading when the only person who professed to understand what the Bill was about was the then Attorney-General. When we went into Committee we found that the then Minister appeared to understand more and more about the Bill as time went on, while the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to understand less and less as we went along. Whether or not the new Solicitor-General will be any more successful in expounding quickly what these Amendments mean than the previous Law Officers were is a matter on which one can only speculate.
The substantial point of complaint is that when, previously, we were discussing the Bill we were able to learn what it was all about only by reason of the fact that we were able to get advice from people outside the House—specialists practising in town planning, members of


learned associations of surveyors, solicitors, and so on. For the ordinary hon. Member it was possible to have available a background of specialised expert criticism. Now we are faced with a proposal to alter the Bill and, I suspect, in many cases to make some major alterations. That is only a matter of speculation because it would be most rash and imprudent for anyone to say that he understood what the Amendments would do.
3.45 p.m.
Not having been able carefully to examine the matter and have the advice of people outside who might have had an opportunity of making representations, it would be most wrong at this late stage to make major alterations—alterations about which if we are honest with ourselves we all have to admit we have not the slightest idea whether they would improve the Bill or make it worse. We shall have to move in the dark with an occasional glimmering of light which may come from the Law Officers and such advice as we may have been able to get in the short time which has been available.
If the House is to behave in a responsible way—to accept responsibility for the legislation it passes and the burdens it places on the public—it should at least take the trouble to find out what it is doing. I do not believe that anyone can honestly say that he understands what the Amendments are going to do. We shall be merely groping in the dark. We may reach conclusions which prove unworkable or which make the Bill better—I do not know—but very few hon. Members are quite sure what to do. It would be very imprudent and most irresponsible to go on to deal with the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I want to reinforce what has been said about the time which has been available for consideration of these Lords Amendments. I do not think anyone on this side of the House would object if the Amendments were largely drafting Amendments. Quite a number of the Amendments are drafting Amendments, but there are some very important ones; introducing changes of substance. There are two new Clauses, the contents

of which I should be out of order in discussing, but both appear very considerably to extend certain financial obligations on the Government and local authorities.
We have not had a chance to consult the local authorities, who are keenly interested and who, in the case of one Amendment, will have to find the money. It seems wrong to treat the Opposition and authorities throughout the country in this way and to give so little time for this very important subject. We had no fewer than 16 sittings in Committee in trying to put the Bill into some sort of order.

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend was lucky; we had only six sittings on the Scottish Bill.

Mr. Skeffington: I dare say that the Scottish Bill was even worse than the English version.
This Bill affects the future development of communities all over the country. It is a matter of major importance; not a trifling, twopenny-halfpenny matter. It is a matter of great principle and I cannot understand the rush to deal with the subject in this pell-mell fashion. I am glad to see the Leader of the House present. I hope that even at this stage he will indicate that further time for the Bill might be made available. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter; many local authorities will have to face fresh financial burdens as a result of the proposed new Clauses, which we are seeing for the first time. We have had an opportunity of looking at the matter only since last Thursday evening. That is not long enough even for a simple Bill, but wholly inadequate for one of the most complicated pieces of legislation ever introduced by any Government. I hope that further consideration will be given to the question of affording more time both to the Opposition and to local authorities and professional bodies outside.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I do not propose to ask the Leader of the House to reconsider this very important question of time in relation to the large bundle of Lords Amendments. I do not ask him to reconsider it because I appreciate that he knows nothing about it; and in that respect he does not hold an uncommon position, because there is no one else who knows anything about


the Bill. When the Bill left this House for another place it was complicated enough. Since it has returned it has made confusion more confounded.
We are asked to consider seriatim all this body of Amendments, and I have calculated that to do so we should have to pass one Amendment per minute. That is an athletic feat which the House of Commons ought never to be asked to perform. If it did, it would certainly achieve a record. We have, as serious people with a responsible task in these legislative matters, to consider whether it be right that the House of Commons should be called on to perform a heavy function of this kind, especially as the Bill itself relates to most complicated and important matters.
For instance, one aspect of the Bill is getting as near to confiscation as any thing can be. The position in regard to compulsory purchase, and in respect of which it makes a modification of the law, is that an owner of land, willy-nilly, has to give it up under terms which are confiscation——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should defer his argument on the merits of the proposal which he is now discussing until the House has agreed, "That the Lords Amendments foe now considered" and we come to the specific Amendment with which he proposes to deal.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: But with respect, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, with no intention for a moment of doubting your Ruling, is it not right, on an occasion of this kind and by way of preliminary, that the House should consider whether the Bill as it has come back is a better or a more satisfactory Bill? My comments are merely directed to that end, because my submission is that here the House is being asked to legislate in a fog. That is what this Bill constitutes. It is so complicated, and the time at our disposal to consider these fundamental changes is grossly inadequate. However, in order not to trespass on your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and while reserving such further criticism and comment as I should like to make as the Amendments pass in parade rapidly before the House, I will satisfy myself with what I have said.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I wish to follow the point made by my hon.

and learned Friend the Member for Leicester,- North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) about what, I think, is the contemptuous way in which the Government are expecting us to deal with a huge list of Amendments to a Bill which, everyone admits, was already sufficiently complicated. The fact is that none of us has had time to consider these Amendments. On Thursday I received a copy, supplied by the Minister, of the notes sent out by his Department. Most of them did not in any way refer to the Amendments in detail. I noticed that one of them had a reference to one of the new Clauses to the effect that it bore little relation to the old Clause. There is more than one Amendment of that kind which should be given full consideration.
During the Committee stage of the Bill, I, with others, had the advantage of being advised by people expert in local government about how they thought the Bill could work. I must confess that sometimes my advice was, apparently, completely contrary to the way in which the Law Officers thought it would work. But, at any rate, we were then given that advantage. Now, with these 152 Amendments—many of which are, I admit, purely drafting Amendments, but some of which raise issues of first-class importance—we are expected to get through the business before dinner-time this evening. That seems to me to be quite unreasonable and the House should not be put into such a position.
I do not see why this matter needs to be rushed. I admit that we are near the end of a Session, but there is to be a new Session in a few days. Surely it should then be possible to go through the proceedings again. At any rate, that would be fairer than to expect us to deal with this enormous mass of Amendments in the short time available this evening; and without the slightest opportunity, not merely of understanding them from our own study, but of obtaining advice from those people who will have the job of operating this Measure when it finally becomes an Act of Parliament. I consider that we are entitled to indicate our strong displeasure at the way in which this mass of Amendments is being rushed through.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 1.—(PAYMENTS BY REFERENCE TO ESTABLISHED CLAIMS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 24, leave out from "been" to "that" in line 25, and insert:
if those provisions had at that time had effect in relation thereto".

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Speaker: I should point out to bon. Members that some of these Amendments involve matters of Privilege. I propose to direct the attention of the House to such cases by announcing the one word "Privilege" after the Clerk has read the Amendment. If the House then agrees with the Amendment, I will have the requisite Special Entry made in the Journals of the House.

Mr. Deedes: This is a drafting Amendment, designed to rectify an obvious mistake. The intention is that the modifications set out in the First Schedule to the Bill should affect all claims on the £300 million fund, whether or not the claims have already been determined. The calculations have, in fact, already been made, and in many cases agreed with those concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2.—(CLAIM HOLDINGS, THEIR AREAS AND VALUES, AND APPORTION- MENT OF VALUES BETWEEN PARTS OF AREAS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 46, leave out from "for" to end of line 2 on page 4 and insert:
treating the claim holding as divided into two or more claim holdings and extinguishing any of those holdings or reducing the value thereof.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This, again, is a drafting Amendment. The words in the Bill which it is proposed to replace are inadequate as a description of the scope of the Second and Third Schedules.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 34, leave out from first "the" to end of line 38, and insert:
amount credited for the purposes of the pledge by reference to the holding;

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is again, in the main, a drafting Amendment. To fix the value of a claim holding by reference to the development charge which is due, as the present text requires, would not be practicable. Under the Second Schedule to the Bill, the amount of the deduction to be made from a claim holding depends on the value of the holding. The value of the holding cannot, at the same time, depend on the amount of the development charge which gives rise to the deduction.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 14, at end, insert:
(5) References in this Part of this Act, other than in this section, to the value of a claim holding are references to the value of that holding immediately before the commencement of this Act.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment. Its object is to put it beyond doubt that for the purposes of Part I of the Bill the value of a claim holding is its value after the operation of the Second and Third Schedules.

Mr. MacColl: Would the Parliamentary Secretary help us by explaining in a little more detail the exact meaning of this Amendment, and, in particular, why there is in it the exception
References in this Part of this Act, other than in this section.…"?
I found that exceedingly difficult to understand.
The Clause referred to as "this section" is Clause 2. That is one of these jolly little Clauses which we have become used to finding in this Bill. There are 147 lines in it, and 28 references to-claim holding. What I do not understand is what the meaning of "claim holding" or "value of claim holding" now is in this Clause. When the Parliamentary Secretary was moving to agree with the Amendment, he said that its purpose was


to make clear beyond doubt what was the meaning of "the value of the claim holdings" in this part of the Bill. If he could help us on that, it would be easy to see how this drafting Amendment works.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Deedes: By leave of the House, I think that the element of doubt which was in the hon. Member's mind has been cleared by the Amendment. There was an element of doubt, before this Amendment was included, what the value of a claim holding was for the purposes of Part I. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove that doubt, and I think that it does so.

Mr. MacColl: I do not want to heckle the Parliamentary Secretary, but the whole burden of my remarks was to ask what was the meaning of the words in the first line of the Amendment, "other than in this section." In other words, for some reason or another the words, "the value of a claim holding" in this section—I see that there are 28 allusions to claim holdings in the section—are taken out of the general definition by this Amendment. That is what puzzles me.

Mr. Deedes: By leave of the House, I hope that this may assist the hon. Gentleman. In subsection (3) reference is made to the value of a holding at any time. I do not know whether that helps to elucidate the point.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: With respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, the process is now in operation that we anticipated, namely, making this confusion more confounded. A very proper question has been asked on a point of deep obscurity. It was obscure before, but this addendum to the obscurity has made the fog a thousand times worse:
… references in this Part of this Act, other than in this section, to the value of a claim holding…
There is not a single word in the whole of that phrase that does not increase the chaos and difficulty. Certainly, it is quite incapable of interpretation. Are we not entitled, in a matter of this kind, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary—who must have been briefed on it; there must be some intelligent meaning to be given to this—to elucidate the meaning of this enigma of expression and obscurity of idea embodied in this sentence? It is absolutely impossible to follow it.
Unlike my hon. Friends, I am a lawyer and I hope that I am a lawyer of some experience and many years' practice. In trying to fit this in the most carefully tailorlike way into the Bill, I find that I cannot make it fit at all. It does not suit the garment. It is just nothing and means nothing and is a perfectly shapeless thing. Surely we are not asking too much of the Parliamentary Secretary when we say, "Give us a simple explanation of this. Define it. Let us in the House of Commons know what it means, so that those whom it will affect outside may also have some inkling as to its meaning."

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wonder whether there is as great a difficulty as hon. Members have felt. If, for example, they look at page 5, line 3, which is part of the existing section, they will find the words:
… the value of the claim holding immediately after the relevant disposition…
If the words "other than in this section" were not in this last Amendment, a contradiction would be created. These words are necessary, if we are not to introduce doubt into the existing section.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Can we not have an answer to this? We are anxious to get on with the Bill as quickly as we can. It is not our object to hold it up. Throughout the various stages of the Bill, we have from the start co-operated most fully and amicably with the Minister. But, in return, we are entitled at least to have a full explanation of the difficulties which we have in the Bill. My hon. Friends have raised a perfectly valid point—if I may say so with respect—and really a very simply understandable one.
The point they make is whether the reference in this part of the Bill, other than in this subsection—the material words are "the value of a claim holding "—is a reference to the value of the holding immediately before the Bill. Why are references to the value of a claim holding in this part of the Bill not references to the value of that holding immediately before the commencement of this Bill? We want a full explanation from the Minister of the difficulties in which we find ourselves. It is a very simple' point that we raise and all we ask is an explanation.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I hope I can help. I do not think that the matter is at all complicated. Subsection (3) of Clause 2, as hon. Members will see, requires a pledge to be valued at a date which is quite inappropriate to the rest of the working of Part I. That is why this process of definition is required—in order to see that for the rest of Part I working, value is to be ascertained after the Second and Third Schedules have been applied. It arises from that. I hope that makes the matter clearer than it was before.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 44, at end insert:
or whose interest has subsequently become merged in that interest.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I hope to deal with this point now for the convenience of the House, because it is really one of a group of Amendments which deal with a quite distinct point. The point is that it is necessary to consider the effect of these provisions where there has been a merger of the interests involved occurring between 1st July, 1948—that is, the date by reference to which claims on the £300 million have been or are to be assessed—and the qualifying act, or event, as it were.
I hope that I can put it in a manner that will deserve praise, even from the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). Subsection (1, b) of Clause 3 says that the entitlement to a payment is dependent upon the development charge having been paid by the person who was the predecessor in title of the claimant. That is the point. That works perfectly well in all cases where the previous owner was the freeholder who paid the development charge and then caused his interest to be sold to the present owner and assigned his claim on the fund to the present owner. That works all right.
But supposing the person who paid the development charge was a tenant or a lessee who, after the 1st July, 1948, and before the material matter, had gone through this history: he had surrendered his lease and assigned his claim to the landlord. It is obviously right in equity

that the assignee of the claim, now the freeholder, should be entitled to the claim. Without the addition of these words he would not be able so to be.
That point I would propose, in future, for the convenience of the House, to call the point relating to merger of interests. I hope I need not explain it again. This is, of course, where that happens in relation to case A under the Bill, but it happens in relation to the other cases as we go through.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am obliged to the Solicitor-General for his comparatively forthcoming explanation, which he has given in the way we expect of him. It is a simple point which is clearly explained, and we accept the explanation and the need to have this done. I would only say by way of adverse comment that this is an instance of the kind of very simple proposition which is so easily overlooked in a Bill of this complexity. It is rather absurd that the Bill should have come back to us with the Lords Amendments before the point is raised or dealt with at all. This is an illustration of the complexity of the Bill; the Bill will be full of little difficulties and complexities of this kind which will make its working out extremely intricate and difficult.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: As the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned my name, I want to tell him that I accepted his explanation entirely, for it was very simple and very clear, but what I cannot understand—it shows how bad a Bill this is—is why this was left out at the very beginning.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 5.—(PAYMENT WHERE LAND COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED OR SOLD AT PRICE WHOLLY OR PARTLY EXCLUD- ING DEVELOPMENT VALUE (CASE B).)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 30, at end insert:
(7) Where an interest in land is the subject of a compulsory acquisition or sale such as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this section and—

(a) on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, but before the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale, another interest had become merged with that interest; and


(b) the person entitled to the interest compulsorily acquired or sold was at the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale entitled to a claim holding or claim holdings which related to either or each of the merged interests,

this section shall apply as if those interests had not merged but had been separately acquired from or sold by the person entitled to the interest acquired or sold; and the compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition or, as the case may be, the sale price shall be treated as apportioned between those interests accordingly:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the operation of the proviso to subsection (4) of the next following section.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) will forgive me if I decline to play badminton with him. If this was missed in the many days in Committee, it is very strange that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself missed it. This Amendment is on the same point of merger of interests, but in this case in relation to case B.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: We have made extensive repairs in the Bill, but we do not suggest for a moment that we have filled up every little gap in it. I am not blaming the Government for overlooking this; I am blaming them for introducing a Bill of such abstruse complexity that this sort of thing inevitably happens.

Mr. MacColl: I wonder whether the Solicitor-General could give me an explanation about something which, on first reading of the Amendment, seems to be a little peculiar. At the end of this long Amendment there is a proviso:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the operation of the proviso to subsection (4) of the next following section.
Any hon. Member who has investigated this and has turned to the next following section will have had a chill run through his bones to discover that there is no proviso to subsection (4). I believe the answer to be—before the House passes the Amendment we ought to know whether this is right—that the proviso will be inserted later by an Amendment to page 13, line 5. We ought to be told whether that is so before

we pass what appears, on the face of it, to be a silly Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman's deduction is right.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 45, at end insert:
(9) Without prejudice to section ten of this Act, paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in relation to a sale in consideration wholly or partly of a rent-charge.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
A different point arises here. It seems that in many parts of the country it is the custom to dispose of land in consideration wholly or partly of a rent-charge, a charge of rent issuing out of the land. What has been done in this series of Amendments is to transfer the cases relating to a rent-charge to Clause 10, and for that reason the reference here is deleted. The Amendment is consequential upon Amendments which we shall ask the House to agree to in relation to Clause 10.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 6.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMPULSORY ACQUISITIONS AND TO SALES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 26, at end insert:
and, so far as required for the purposes of that Part, for the purposes of the Third Schedule to the principal Act;

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment. The assessment of "restricted value" under Part VI of the 1947 Act involves the application of the Third Schedule to that Act. That is the Schedule concerned with rebuilding rights. It is desirable to put it beyond doubt that the substitution, for the purposes of the present provision, of the date of sale for the appointed day has effect in the Schedule. This gives the intention of the Clause effect in the Schedule.

Mr. G. Lindgren: We shall be pleased to consider the Lords Amendment if it is, in fact, a Lords


Amendment. One of our difficulties m considering these Amendments has been to discover at what stage they were considered by their Lordships. Struggling through homework over the weekend, one expected Amendments to be dealt with during the Committee stage, but one suddenly found them brought in out of the blue in another place during the Report stage and there was even one on Third Reading. However, search as I might, I cannot find that this Amendment was discussed by their Lordships at all or recommended by their Lordships. If the Parliamentary Secretary can give us the column reference for the Amendment we can satisfy ourselves that it is a Lords Amendment that we are asked to agree to.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is——

Mr. Sparks: May we have that point cleared up? The Amendment might inadvertently not have appeared on the Order Paper when going through another place.

Mr. Speaker: I am bound to put the Question.

Mr. Lindgren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Even in their Lordships' House one of the Ministers in charge of the Bill—this is not raised as a matter of complaint—apologised to a noble Lord a day or so after the Bill had been in Committee for suggesting that an Amendment was a drafting Amendment when it was, in fact, an Amendment of substance. That is understandable in a complicated Bill like this. However, we are entitled to be satisfied where an Amendment is recommended as an Amendment from another place that it is a Lords Amendment. I have tried to find reference to the Amendment in the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place. One has been able to find other Amendments, some on Report and one on Third Reading, but at the moment I am fogged about this Amendment.

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Gentleman will find reference to the Amendment in column 1415 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place.

Mr. Speaker: I ought to point out with reference to the document that we have before us that the Lords Amendments must be taken as from another place in the farm in which they are printed in

that document. It is the document on which we are working. Strictly speaking, it is not in order to refer to debates in another place of the same Session covering the same subject. That is a rule which one can relax for good reason, but I hope that the practice will not be indulged in too much.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 12, after "forty-eight" insert:
and at the date of the sale the development specified in the certificate had not been completed.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The point of the Amendment relates to the dead-ripe certificate scheme, which is familiar to hon. Members who were busy on the Bill earlier. I apologise for the jargon "dead-ripe," but it is accepted. The Amendment is designed to deal with the case where the development has been in part completed. Hon. Members will realise that this is an Amendment dealing not with compulsory acquisitions but with private transactions only, and they will see from Clause 6 (2) that the normal standard in relation to private transactions based on a normal sale will be that the payment for depreciation is to be assessed on the basis of the restricted value of the interest at the time of the sale. If there be an excess of the sale price over the restricted value, then, by Clause 5 (4) of the Bill, that excess has to be deducted.

Dr. H. Morgan: Clear as mud.

Mr. Sparks: Surely the learned Solicitor-General means deducted from the amount of the established claim.

The Solicitor-General: The point is that the dead ripe certificate conferred exemption from development charge. Therefore, where none of the development contemplated has been proceeded with before the sale in question, one has to assume that the exemption had a value. It was, indeed, part of what was paid for by the purchaser, who paid for the value of the exemption when he bought it. This is part of what he paid for and, therefore, it has to be added to the restricted value for the purpose of this subsection. That is what the


subsection now does, and it does it in the proviso.
Obviously, where only part of the development has been completed before the sale, the position is different, and the Amendment deals with that aspect. The value of the development which had then been completed would be included in the restricted value, so that a deduction would have to be made for the value of the exemption limited to the remainder.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 12, line 20, leave out from first "of" to "if" in line 21 and insert:
so much of that development as had not been completed if it had been completed and".—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 5, at end, insert:
Provided that where the whole or part of any liability or prospective liability which was or, as the case may be, would have been taken into account in calculating that restricted value had ceased to exist before the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale, the Board, or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part, as may appear to them appropriate, any reduction otherwise falling to be made under this subsection.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Those hon. Members who have been busy with the Bill will remember a minus proposition where the restricted value upon computation results in a minus quantity. The kind of instance we had was that where agricultural land was, in fact, let at £40 a year, but, if restricted to agricultural use, its value would have been £5 per year. This is where we get the case of the minus quantity in the valuation. The House has already approved Clause 6 (4), the appropriate provision in relation to these minus quantities, which provides for a reduction of the value toy the amount of the minus quantity, no doubt because the result of the acquisition will be to relieve the person concerned of the obligation of having to pay further rent. That is the principle, but the difficulty arises where the liability, be it a rent charge or whatever it may be, gives rise to a minus quantity and where

that ceases or is reduced in amount before the sale takes place. Obviously this adjusts the calculation, and the only purpose of the Amendment is to provide for that type of case which it does.

Mr. Lindgren: We are obliged to the learned Solicitor-General for his explanation of this technical Amendment, but he has not dealt with the reason a discretion is allowed in this Amendment. The Amendment says:
… may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part …
That is a discretion, but there is no indication there, nor was any given by the Solicitor-General, as to the principle that will be used in the exercise of that discretion.
The same point arises on the Amendment to line 43, where it is stated that the board or the tribunal—
… may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part …
Again, that gives no indication of the principle. Cannot any indication be given why the discretion is given and on what principle it is to be used in coming to the assessment?

The Solicitor-General: By leave of the House, I will reply to the point raised. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman; I admit that I should have indicated why there is this discretion, and I regret that I forget to do so.
It is estimated—and I refer here also to cases of gifts—that the number of cases arising under the Bill will be extremely small, but that the circumstances will be extremely various. If that be so, we have to legislate for a discretion in order to give the board the power to do justice, and that is my submission to the House.
I think it is common sense and wise, but, as to the standard which the board or tribunal will apply, we know that there will be a very large variation in circumstances, but only a small number of cases, and it seems best to provide power in the Amendment to enable them to do what they think will be just and proper. It is an absolute discretion, but I hope there is no reason for a lack of confidence in the bodies to which it is entrusted.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: We are obliged to the Solicitor-General for the very clear explanation which he has given, but we do not like giving this discretion, and we shall come to the point again later. We are not casting any reflection upon anybody at all in saying that. Of course, this discretion will be exercised rightly and properly and with a due sense of justice, but it really does appear to be the very negation of good legislation to give a discretion in oases wherever a difference occurs.
If we really are to preserve liberty, and are concerned about its preservation, we should see that legislation lays down the principles upon which payments in cases like this should be made, and should not be left as a matter of discretion at all. I shall return to the point at a later stage in our proceedings, but we shall not oppose the Government on this Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to—[Special Entry.]

Clause 7.—(PAYMENT WHERE LAND DISPOSED OF BY GIFT (CASE C).)

Lords Amendment: In line 15, leave out "entitled in the same capacity" and insert "beneficially entitled."

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment. The words "in the same capacity," which are defined in Clause 68 (1), may be misleading in the present context, because payments under Clause 7 are limited to cases where the claim holder parted with the whole of his beneficial interest in the land, which is referred to in line 19. Therefore, it seems better to make it clear from the start that the applicant for a payment must have been beneficially entitled at the time of the gift both to the claim holding and to the related interest in the land. This Amendment uses the word "beneficial" in both cases.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I very much agree with this Amendment, because the words "entitled in the same capacity" are obviously obscure words, and I have found very great difficulty in following them at all. Now, the matter is perfectly clear. It is the person who is beneficially entitled to whom this provision is directed.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I have felt a slight difficulty about this, and I am rather puzzled about it. As an illustration of the complexity of the Bill, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) and I take rather different views about it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I was not saying that I took a different view from my hon. and learned Friend; I am not sure that I do. I was saying that the words "entitled in the same capacity" are absolutely meaningless, but that the matter is now clear.

4.30 p.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I can well understand a lawyer's preference for the word "beneficial" to the words in the Bill, but the phrase "entitled in the same capacity" is a perfectly well-authenticated and accepted term. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the definition Clause, but I have not yet been able to see it. I gather that it is there, though I have not been able to trace it. If it is defined in the definition Clause, and if the Parliamentary Secretary says that it is there then I will accept it.
This is an instance that puzzles me. Suppose there is a trustee who holds property with absolute powers of disposition given under the trust, as trustees so often do. He holds a claim holding and interest in land, holding both in the same capacity as trustee. As I understand the proposed Amendment, he would not be entitled to put in a claim. Who, then, would be entitled, in those circumstances and in regard to that trust, to put in the claim? Is it contemplated that those with a beneficial interest, even if an infant, might be so entitled to put in a claim?
In spite of the explanation so courteously given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I cannot see what the advantage is if the alteration which he proposes is made. One of my hon. Friends has now handed me the definition Clause, which is Clause 68 (1), where the words to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred appear. They say that "in the same capacity" means:
entitled in one only of the following capacities, that is to say, beneficially, or as trustee of one particular trust, or as personal representative of one particular person.
I should have thought that was the obvious definition of "in the same capacity." I


cannot understand the object of changing these words. As I am advised, I should have thought that the change was not an improvement. This is a drafting point. There is no question of principle between us, but I would prefer to have a fuller explanation than we have had.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: It may be that there is rather more force in the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) than might at first appear. Clause 68 (1) applies "except where the context otherwise requires." To put the proposed Amendment into the Bill may lead to complicated arguments as to whether the context otherwise requires or not in Clause 7. If I followed the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, his expert view is that the existing words are clear in themselves and would not lead to such a complication. I would therefore ask my hon. Friends who are in charge of the Bill to consider the point which has just been made.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) must not be fussy. He was not upstairs with us when we discussed the Bill or he would know that the kind of difficulty created by the words "except where the context otherwise requires" is found everywhere in the Bill. It is late in the life of the Bill to get excited about a little difficulty of that sort. The Government must realise that one of the great difficulties is that we have lost the support of those whom we revered and from whom we derived strength and guidance.
Now there is a difference of opinion between a great common lawyer, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), and a great equity lawyer, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). It is one of those historic conflicts that arise in the courts and may have far-reaching ramifications. I would not know what the ultimate resolution of it might be. It clearly indicates the problems that will arise under the Bill. The simplest little alteration, which to most of us seems to be only word-splitting, can precipitate us into the most profound conflicts, problems and difficulties which can only be resolved by higher judicial authority.

Mr. Deedes: I am anxious to reassure the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas): He will agree that no fewer than three hon. Gentlemen with considerable legal experience differ whether this is a good Amendment or not. I hardly like to intervene. The intention of the Amendment is to remove doubts that might arise about the meaning of the words "entitled in the same capacity." In view of the fact that the words "beneficially entitled" are used elsewhere, and of the feeling that those two expressions do not mean the same thing, we were proposing, in order to remove any element of doubt, that the words "beneficially entitled" be substituted.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: May I test the hon. Gentleman by asking a very simple question? Would a trustee who holds a claim holding and an interest in land on trust be entitled to any claim under the words "beneficially entitled"?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, if he were beneficially entitled at the time both to the claim holding and to the interest in land. When the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) was reading the definition of "in the same capacity" he left out the words:
in relation to entitlement both to a claim holding and to an interest in land.
They show the need for clarity in this case. The only object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the applicant for payment must have been beneficially entitled at the time of the gift both to the claim holding and to the interest in land.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Would the Solicitor-General kindly add to what he has said by saying what, in his view, is the interest that a trustee holds in these circumstances, and whether it is beneficial or otherwise? This is vital to our understanding of the matter. This is something on which the Solicitor-General ought to clarify the Bill in order that the House may know what it is doing. By the question which has been put to the Solicitor-General, this reading of the Clause clinches the matter by putting it where it belongs. If we can get an explanation and a definition of the position I have referred to, we shall be able to judge whether the right words are "beneficially entitled" or "entitled in the same capacity."
It is the bounden duty of the Front Bench and of the Solicitor-General to give an answer to this question. The hon. and learned Gentleman should define explicitly the interest that an interested trustee has in a situation of this kind, and whether it is beneficial or otherwise. I hope that my hon. Friends will insist upon an answer. If we know that, we shall have information that we need so that we can come to a decision. We cannot come to a decision without it, because we are without a crucial test. If the Minister will answer, we can decide whether or not to support the Amendment; but if we do not get an answer, I strongly advise my Friends on this side of the House to take the matter to issue.

Mr. Lindgren: My hon. and learned Friend and I are concerned whether a trustee, having a claim holding, would have an entitlement under the definition. That is a very important question, covering a wide range of transactions, and it is important to have an answer before we pass from this Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I may, with the leave of the House, speak again and say that the ordinary contrast prevails between the beneficial owner and the owner as trustee. I am confirmed in that belief by the definition in Clause 68 (1), where a contrast is drawn between owning as beneficiary or as trustee. I think that that contrast covers the point.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, who is continuing to give us some very clear explanations, but if, under Clause 7 (1), a trustee is not entitled to put in a claim—for that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying—then we are in the astonishing position that where a trustee is holding a claim holding and an interest in land upon trust for persons in succession, some of whom may be infants, and some even yet unborn, it is not contemplated that that trustee should be the person to put in the claim, but, apparently, that all those persons in succession, including infants and even unborn persons, should put in the claim, because they are the persons beneficially interested.
One has only to consider that position to realise the complete absurdity of it, and that is why I asked the question. It

seems extraordinary to contemplate that beneficiaries under a trust should be the persons to put in the claim. Surely it must be the trustee. That being so, it is merely leading to the kind of difficulties which we have been considering to describe the trustee as a person beneficially entitled, because, as the Solicitor-General has just pointed out with great force, "beneficially entitled" means the opposite to the definition of a person in the same capacity in Clause 68.
If the explanation is really to stand on the record as being the official view of the effect of this Clause, then it is a view the adoption of which is a most extraordinary course for the Government to pursue. I really cannot believe that that is the Government's intention. We do not want to take this matter to a Division, because it is a pure technicality. All that we are trying to do is to help to reach a sensible conclusion concerning a provision in the Clause. I think it would be lamentable if it were left on the record that persons beneficially interested and not trustees are the persons to make the claim. I do not think that that can be the intention.

The Solicitor-General: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension for which I am at fault for not clearing up. Clause 7 deals with the question of payment where the land has been disposed of by gift. It is Case C. A trustee was never qualified under the Clause, because a trustee cannot give away trust property. That is the difficulty about what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. If we look at line 18 of the Clause, we see that it involves
a disposition by virtue of which
the person in question—this is, ex-hypothesi, the trustee—
parted absolutely with the whole of his beneficial interest in that land.
That is something that a trustee could not do, and that, I hope, clears up the ambiguity.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: If that really is the intention, then it does not follow at all. There may well be circumstances in which the trustee has power to give away land without receiving any payment in return. There are all kinds of circumstances in which that might arise. For instance, the testator may, upon giving land to a trustee, say that the trustee


may in certain circumstances give away the land to this, that or the other person if he thinks fit. That is the simplest case of all. If this Clause is devised on the assumption that in no circumstances can a trustee ever give away anything except for valuable consideration, then it seems that the Clause is very ill-founded.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: With the leave of the House, may I put this to the hon. and learned Gentleman? Supposing that in a trust or in a will there is a provision to sell or to convert, and supposing that the trustee is invested with that power either to sell or to convert the land, in other words, to deal with the land, what, in those circumstances—as my hon. and learned Friend has very properly pointed out—is to be the situation?
It seems that if those words are now substituted, the trustee will be unable, so far as this Bill is concerned, to deal with the land, whereas in law and so far as the conferment of powers by way of trust from a donor or a testator are concerned, he will be prevented from dealing with the land in the way desired by the donor or testator. If that were so, the greatest prejudice could arise to the estate, because there would be a complete hold up and a complete disability to deal with this problem.
To take another case, let us suppose, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, that children were involved or a prospective beneficiary who was not then in a position to deal with the property in the way necessary to effect the purpose of this provision. What would then be the position? It seems to me—and, having reconsidered the matter carefully, I quite agree that my hon. and learned Friend is right—that not only is this creating a difficulty, but that we shall multiply the difficulties, because there must be many illustrations where we should be depriving the person who now has the power from exercising that power in the way he should.

Dr. H. Morgan: Never mind, the judges will tear it up.

The Solicitor-General: If, with the leave of the House, I may try yet again, I shall hope to assist the House and the hon. and learned Gentleman by inviting hon. Members to take the view that this is nothing but a drafting Amendment and

does not alter the substance of what the House has already approved. The hon. and learned Gentleman understands this. The Clause was always limited to a case where the person entitled, in the same capacity both to claim holding and to the interest in land, made a disposition by virtue of which he parted absolutely with the whole of his beneficial interest in that land.
The point which I was endeavouring to make plain was that that does not arise in connection with a trustee, because a trustee could never be a person entitled to part absolutely with the whole of the beneficial interest in the land owing to the fact that, as a trustee, he does not have the beneficial interest in it. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is a drafting Amendment, pure and simple.

Mr. Lindgren: With the leave of the House, I would point out that the Solicitor-General has said that this is purely a drafting Amendment. As a non-legal person, I must say that this discussion has not exactly clarified the position to the ordinary person. I accept on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend that this is not a question of policy, and that, therefore, we shall not divide the House on it. But it serves to show how ill-considered this Bill has been right the way through. Even at this late stage, an Amendment is proposed which, even if it does not make for confusion, equally does not make for clarity. We propose to let it go in this instance while being far from satisfied that it improves the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 16, after "related" insert:
or another interest in which that interest had merged".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the same point about merging interests; in this case, relating to Case C.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 43, at end, insert:
Provided that where the whole or part of any liability or prospective liability which was or, as the case may be, would have been taken


into account in calculating that restricted value had ceased to exist before the date of the disposition in question, the Board or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part, as may appear to them appropriate, any reduction otherwise falling to be made under this subsection.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As, I think, the hon. Member for Northampton and the Soke of Peter borough himself has anticipated——

Mr. Lindgren: Wellingborough.

The Solicitor-General: I beg the hon. Member's pardon—this Amendment deals with the case of the valuation working out at a minus quantity, when the factor giving rise to the minus quantity is reduced, or has ceased to exist, before the event.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 10.—(PAYMENTS IN CASES ANALOGOUS TO CASE B.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 11, leave out from "related" to "was" in line 12 and insert:
or another interest in which that interest had merged.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment deals with the same point about the merging of the interest; this time in cases analogous to Case B.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 15, line 18, after "if" insert:
the interest so affected, in the next following subsection referred to as.

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 25, leave out "in consideration" and insert:
or of that interest in so far as it subsisted in particular land, where the consideration for the sale consisted wholly or partly,

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment deals with two points. The House will remember that it is necessary to consider cases where the consideration for the sale of the land was not

wholly in respect of the rent charge, but partly in respect of the rent charge. There is the further case, where only part of the land in which the vendor's interest subsisted was sold in consideration of the rent charge. This Amendment deals with both of those cases.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 34, after "affected" insert:
being damage in respect of which compensation fell, or if the sale had been a compulsory acquisition would have fallen, to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of Part V of the principal Act (which provides for compensation on the basis of existing use value) as applied by subsection (4) of section one hundred and nineteen of that Act;

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Clause 10 has been reorganised by this string of Amendments. Opportunity has been taken to put in the necessary wording to deal with cases where the consideration for the sale was wholly or partly in respect of a rent charge. If hon. Members have the Clause before them, I can most rapidly and conveniently indicate the nature of the rearrangement by saying that subsection (2) really ought to be a grouping of the cases in which payment is to be made—dealing really with entitlement. Subsection (3) ought really to be a group of considerations governing the amount of the payment. As the Bill is drawn there is some confusion between those two elements, and opportunity has been taken simply to rearrange the Clause so as to group those two factors logically and conveniently in that way.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 38, at end, insert:
being damage in respect of which compensation fell to be assessed in accordance with section two of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, as modified by section ten of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1948 (which limits the compensation to an amount calculated on the basis of existing use value).

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the words in the said Amendment."
This is part of the same process of rearrangement.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 16, leave out lines 1 to 25 and insert:
(b) in the case of a sale falling within paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection, to the capital value of the rentcharge or, as the case may be, to the aggregate consideration represented by the price paid and the capital value of the rentcharge;
(c) in the case of a compulsory acquisition falling within paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection or in a case falling within paragraph (d) of that subsection, to the compensation paid or payable in respect of the damage referred to in that paragraph;
(d) in the case of a sale falling within paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection, to the sale price in so far as it represented compensation in respect of the damage referred to in that paragraph,

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is part of the same process of rearrangement, but it includes the required reference to rent charges.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 28, leave out "relevant interest" and insert:
interest in land to which the claim holding related,

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is consequential on the changes which the House has already made relating to the merging of interests.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 11.—(RESIDUAL PAYMENTS IN CASES ANALOGOUS TO CASES A AND B.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 10, at end, insert:
or another interest in which that interest had merged".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment deals with the same point of the merging of the interest, but in this case it relates to cases analogous to Cases A and B.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry]

Clause 12.—(PAYMENTS NOT TO EXCEED VALUE OF CLAIM HOLDING.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of Clause 12 and insert:
the authority determining the amount of any such payment shall apportion that amount between the different parts of the area of the claim holding in such manner as appears to that authority proper, and if the aggregate of the portions of the principal amounts of the respective payments so apportioned to any part of the area of the claim holding would, apart from the provisions of this subsection, exceed the fraction of the value of the claim holding attaching to that part of the area thereof, those portions shall be reduced rateably so that the aggregate of them is equal to the said fraction, and the said principal amounts shall be treated as reduced accordingly.
(2) Where two or more payments are payable in respect of the same claim holding by virtue of the last preceding section, the aggregate of the principal amounts of those payments shall not exceed the value of the claim holding or, where that value is treated as reduced in accordance with subsection (6) of the last preceding section, that value as so reduced.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think that a little more explanation would be for the convenience of hon. Members. This is really a drafting Amendment to deal with instances of competing claims. Where two or more payments fall to be due in respect of either the same part or overlapping parts of the land to which the claim holding relates further provision than is now contained in the Bill is required. That is precisely all that is here provided for.
Hon. Members will see the method adopted. The object, of course, is to see that, in the aggregate, such payments do not exceed the value of the claim holding. This is merely a method of ensuring that object in circumstances such as I have described, where two or more payments fall to be due in respect of the same or overlapping parts.

Mr. MacColl: A new character seems here to come, at a late stage, into this somewhat turgid and glooming drama—the authority determining the amount. I do not remember meeting him before, and it might be a help to us if we could have just a few words of introduction. He is obviously a kindly and avuncular character, because he will have in front


of him a sort of row of little boys, all with bits of a claim holding and all demanding a share of the kitty, and he will apportion the amount in such manner as appears to him to be proper.
There is something Victorian about that. There is no nonsense about legal rights, and no nonsense about calculating it on the basis of any formula or anything of that sort. The authority, whoever he or she may be, will hand out the share purely on his judgment of the characters of the people concerned, taking into account, no doubt, any moral delinquency of which any of them may have been guilty, or possibly any political views they may hold. It seems to be entirely arbitrary. I think that what the Government are really doing here is just giving up in despair—as my hon. and learned Friend said earlier. They cannot work out a rational way of doing this so they are to hand it over to the absolute discretion of someone else to decide the amount he can pay out and get away with. I do not blame the Government. I think that they have probably been forced into it, but it seems an extraordinary refuge for the House to take.
Is the authority determining the amount to be the board, or the Lands Tribunal, which generally takes an active part, or someone else? If it is to be the board or the tribunal, could not the Bill say so, so that the unfortunate practitioner who has to interpret this provision will not have to go through the Bill until he finds out?

Mr. Sparks: Will the Solicitor-General carry this matter a stage further? I really do not understand in what circumstances it would be possible to pay out more than the original claim holding. The claim holding is determined on the basis of values existing in 1948. One may have a piece of land which has an established claim. In the course of time it may be divided and subdivided, but the original claim is there.
Surely if, for various reasons, payment is made on only a portion of that claim there must be a record of it somewhere—it is not completely lost—and in the event of any subsequent claim proceeding the information is available to those whose responsibility it will be to assess it.

In the event of any subsequent proceedings, surely the information is available to those whose responsibility it will be to make the assessment. They would surely have knowledge of the additional claim.
When the hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that there is a possibility of sums being paid in compensation which are greater than the established claim, I cannot understand why that should be the case. I confess that I do not understand the Bill in detail. Will the Solicitor-General tell us the cases which he has in mind in which it would be possible for a sum greater than the original established claim to be paid?

5.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I may reply, by leave of the House. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has in mind the kind of case for which provision is made in Clause 2 (3). It is a long time since we were considering it. Paragraph (a) states
that the aggregate of the values of all claim holdings representing parts of the benefit of the Blame established claim shall not exceed the amount of that established claim;".
This is a parallel case arising in circumstances where two or more payments have to be made on the same part of an area for which the claim holding exists or where there are two or more payments in respect of physically overlapping parts of the land. AH that is done here is to enable the scaling-down process to take place in a parallel form to that which would be required under Clause 2 (3, a), in order to bring the aggregate of the values claimed down to the total value of the claim holding and to see that they do not exceed it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: In my view, there is more in this provision than quickly meets the eye. We have only to reconsider what it deals with to make that point good. This is the question of an amount which is to be distributed amongst the various claimants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has said, this is a departure from what was previously in the Bill.
First, the provision does not stipulate who the authority is, and I should have thought that people would want to know who was the authority who would decide their case. Secondly, how is the case to be decided? It seems to me extraordinary that a person who is entitled


to £x will have the question completely settled without being told who is settling it or how it has been settled. No machinery whatever is either adumbrated or provided in the Clause to deal with these vital matters.
No one knows on what principle the distribution is to be made, whether it is to be made on considerations of merit or whether it is to be, as used to be said about the Order of the Garter, on the basis that "There's no damn nonsense of merit about it." In provisions of this kind, where people's interests are concerned, it ought to be made absolutely clear, first, who is the authority who will decide; secondly, how it is to be decided; and, thirdly, what machinery there is to deal with the matter. Not one of these essential features is contained in these provisions, and I think the Solicitor-General should consider it again in order that the matter might be put right.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 13.— [APPLICATIONS FOR PAYMENTS UNDER PART I.]

Lords Amendment: In line 33, leave out from Board to end of line 46 and insert:
on determining any such application, to give notice of their findings to the applicant, and, if their findings include an apportionment, to give particulars of the apportionment to any other person entitled to an interest in land which it appears to the Board will be substantially affected by the apportionment.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is designed as a simplification, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will see it in that sense. It brings the provisions of Clause 13 (2) into line with similar provisions in Clause 28 (1). At present Clause 13 (2) contains an additional requirement by which the Central Land Board has to give notice to all concerned of any proposed apportionment. The apportionment, as hon. Members know, is the process of breaking down the claim on the fund to decide how much relates to a part of the original area of land.
It has been found that this additional requirement might delay the settlement of claims, as well as being unnecessary. In practice, the assessment of what is payable will be carried out by the district

valuer in negotiation with those concerned. If paragraph 13 (2, c) were preserved, it would be necessary to serve a fresh series of notices whenever the district valuer proposed to vary an apportionment in deference to arguments put to him.
All concerned in this arrangement will be able to dispute his figures, if dissatisfied, before the Lands Tribunal at a subsequent stage. That is dealt with in Clause 13 (3). It is thought that this additional hurdle would be better out of the way. In other words, this makes a formal arrangement into an informal arrangement.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House where the notice of the findings is given to the applicant, as provided by the Clause, and whether the applicant will have had any opportunity whatever of submitting what he thinks that finding ought to be? Or is it left to the authority quite arbitrarily to decide as he likes?

Mr. A. J. Irvine: It is quite true that the Amendment is a simplification, and in terms of drafting it is in many respects a valuable simplification, but it appears to me to affect not so much the persons who shall receive notice as the persons who shall have the opportunity to make representations to the board.
I am in some difficulty to discover what advantage is gained by eliminating the entitlement of persons who have an interest in land, and who are substantially affected by the apportionment, to make their representations to the board. It seems a barely sufficient safeguard that they may later have the opportunity of putting their points to the Lands Tribunal. I should have thought it was manifestly desirable that, if they are to have an opportunity of making these representations at all, they should have the opportunity of putting them to the court or board of first instance.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: We do not want to detain the House on this Amendment because it is a machinery point, although not an unimportant one. I am not persuaded by the considerations which the Parliamentary Secretary has put before the House. It is all very well to say that the Amendment makes matters simpler because if there are variations


then every variation does not have to be notified, but I should have thought that the subsection as it stands provides the remedy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) indicated. It requires notice only to those who are "substantially affected" by the apportionment.
If they are substantially affected by the apportionment surely it should follow that they should have notice of what substantially affects them, and therefore they should have the opportunity of putting it before the district valuer, or whoever it is, before the final determination is come to—not dealing with every trifling apportionment made in the course of negotiations—for his consideration.
I should have thought that that was the only just thing to do instead of leaving a person by the elimination of Clause 13 (2, c) to go to the Board where, maybe, he would find himself stung for costs and all the rest of it in order to do so. I should have thought that this was not an improvement of the Bill, and I personally cannot accept it as such.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 15.—(EFFECT OF PAYMENTS ON CLAIM HOLDINGS.)

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 32, leave out from "holding" to "the" in, line 33.

In line 36, leave out from "payment" to "is" in line 37.

In line 41, at end, insert:
Provided that if in the case of any claim holding a payment becomes payable under Case D, then, regardless of the amount of that payment, that holding shall for the purposes of the following Parts of this Act be deemed to have been extinguished immediately before the commencement of this Act.

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 1, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert:
(3) Where one or more acts or events have occurred whereby in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act one or more payments become payable in respect of a claim holding (in this section referred to as "the parent holding") and any such act or event did not extend to the whole of the area of the parent holding, then, both for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this section and for the purposes of the following Parts of this Act—

(a) the parent holding shall be treated as having been divided immediately before the

commencement of this Act into as many separate claim holdings, with such areas, as may be necessary to ensure that in the case of each holding either any such act or event as aforesaid extending to the area of that holding extended to the whole thereof or no such act or event extended to the area of that holding;
(b) the value of each of the separate holdings respectively shall be taken to be that fraction, of the value of the parent holding which then attached to the part of the area of the parent holding constituting the area of the separate holding;
(c) the authority determining the amount of any such payment shall apportion that amount between the areas of the separate claim holdings to which the act or event in question extended in such manner as may appear to that authority proper, and the portion of that amount apportioned to the area of any separate claim holding shall be taken to be a payment payable under this Part of this Act in respect of that claim holding.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is really only a drafting Amendment, but for the convenience of the House I ought perhaps to explain how it arises. The purpose of subsections (3) and (4) of the Clause, as the House will remember, is to make sure that where a payment is made in respect of a claim holding on account of an act or event affecting only part of the area of that holding, it shall be debited against the fraction of the value of the holding appropriate to that part.
This is at present achieved by dividing the holding into two holdings and so on, one relating to the land developed when that part is developed and the other to the remainder, and debiting the payment against the former. That is all right so far as it goes, but the present subsections are not adequate to cover cases where there have been separate payments relating to different but overlapping parts of the area of the claim holding. That is the only point involved.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 16.—(SCOPE OF PART II.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 5, at end, insert:
(3) Where, on an application for planning permission for the carrying out of new development of land to which this section applies, a planning decision is made after the commencement of this Act whereby that permission is granted (whether unconditionally or not) and


the Minister certifies that he is satisfied that particular buildings or works to which the application related were only included therein because the applicant had reason to believe that permission for the other development to which the application related would not have been granted except subject to a condition requiring the erection or construction of those buildings or works, then, for the purposes of this Part of this Act—

(a) the application shall be deemed to have included, in place of those buildings or works, such other development of the land on which the buildings or works were to be erected or constructed as might reasonably have been expected to have been included having regard to the other development to which the application related; and
(b) the permission shall be deemed to have been granted for the other development to which the application related subject to the condition aforesaid.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a new point. The clue to it is contained in the words in the part of the Amendment labelled subsection (3), to deal with the matter where
the Minister certifies that he is satisfied that particular buildings or works to which the application related were only included therein because the applicant had reason to believe that permission fox the other development to which the application related would not have been granted except subject to a condition requiring the erection or construction of those buildings or works.…
Assuming that the proposed developer wanted to find out what the planning authority would like him to do so that he would foe more likely to get its permission—for instance, where the developer is building a service road and the planning authority would be more likely to grant him permission if he built it—and the service road is not made a condition of the planning permission, he could not, as the Bill now stands, get compensation for it. That seems unjust. This Amendment is designed to show that, where the work is not the subject of express conditions, and that the service road was included in the application in anticipating the planning authority's requirements, it would be right to include it for compensation.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: I suggest that this Amendment is another example in this Bill of the unfairness as between the individual developers. The Solicitor-General referred to the provision of a

service road. Let us take two examples. One is the developer who is a good developer and who carries out his development on the basis of good relationship. He sees, in relation to development in the area that if there is direct access to the road this is dangerous. He will therefore provide, as a good developer, a service road. If he does that he gets no compensation whatever, but he does get something, because the good developer, by making it safe, and putting the houses back from the other road, gets the increased value in the development.
But let us take the developer who, instead of doing that on a basis of good neighbourliness and proper planning, goes to the local authority to see what is the most he can get away with. He has a talk with the local surveyor and says, "This development is going to take place." The local surveyor says, "If that comes up, you will not get it through. This is a dangerous place and the only correct development is to provide a service road." The developer goes back and puts in his plans for a service road. He has agreed to the proposition, but under this proviso he gets compensation, whereas the previous person does not get compensation. In these instances, because of good planning he gets the increased value of the property he is developing and also compensation because he has been given the tip by the local surveyor that on the basis of good planning it is necessary to put in a service road.
I think that there will be a lot of argument in regard to this Clause. I do not say that people will run away from what has been said, but we all know in practical experience that the most difficult thing to hold people to on occasion is the interpretation of a telephone conversation. As I read this Amendment, it seems to me that the wording is quite plain where the developer had reason to believe that he would not have got his consent other than toy having complied with certain conditions,
and the Minister certifies that he is satisfied that the particular buildings or works to which the application related were only included therein because the applicant had reason to believe that permission for the other development…
The "reason to believe" may be a telephone conversation. Then there will be on the local authority the doubt of


whether or not such a telephone conversation took place. I think that on the basis of fairness between individual and individual the Amendment is wrong. I think that it also brings forward the opportunity for further acrimony and perhaps even legal argument, and that it is giving compensation where compensation ought not to take place because it is compensation for a piece of development which is on the basis of good neighbourliness and public safety—the real essence of planning. Because a thing is required on a basis of public safety, we are to compensate the landowner because he had some indication that he could not get away with it on a worse piece of planning. The Solicitor-General may think that this Amendment is an improvement. I think that it makes the Bill even worse and means the paying out of public money where it ought not to be paid.
There is another reason for which I am worried. Clause 21 (7) states:
In this section the expression 'means of access to a highway' does mot include a service road.
I have a feeling that what all this means is that the service road in development has gone for ever, and that because there is the possibility of compensation there will be direct access to main roads. But whether that is so or not, the Amendment means a payment which is not justified in any sense.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I support the objections to the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has put forward. Its effect, as I understand it, is this. An owner of an interest may apply for permission to develop and may get it. Having got it, he would not in the ordinary practice be entitled to compensation. But when all that has been done, the Amendment makes it open for him to come forward and say, "I put only this part of my proposals into the plan which I submitted because I knew that otherwise I would not get permission." Having said that, he can go straight to the Minister and hope to get compensation on the basis that he has received permission to develop only subject to conditions.
One wonders how that is to be proved. It is an entirely subjective condition which the owner of an interest has to

establish. I should have expected that the Solicitor-General would have no doubt about the undesirability of putting to the test the question of what was the subjective view of an applicant on a point of this kind at the time that he was making application. No procedure is laid down anywhere as to how this has to be done.
It seems to me that where a developer, because of information that he receives, has reason to think that he will get only conditional permission, his correct course is to put in his application for the permission which he wants. Because of his foreknowledge, he is expecting only conditional permission, and he will receive his compensation because the permission is conditional. That is perfectly adequate and meets the case.
In my view, the proposed provision, which is advantageous to a developer requiring permission and who does something really that he should not do, is very undesirable. In my view, an applicant would be incorporating in his proposal an element which he does not want, because he anticipates that only by so doing will he get permission. He is not doing what, under our system of planning law, in practice he ought to do. The issue is befogged, and it is quite wrong to entitle him subsequently to say to the Minister, "When I did this, I did it only because I knew that otherwise I would not get permission." The Minister will be placed in an intolerably difficult position in determining the merits of the matter. The proposal seems to me to be objectionable at every turn.

Mr. MacColl: The vice of this proposal can be traced back to the original provision in the Bill which exempted service roads from the general principle that access to a highway was not one of the conditions which attracted compensation. We raised this matter in Committee, and I have been kicking myself ever since 20th May that I withdrew my Amendment instead of pressing it to a Division. If an owner develops an estate in which there must be a means of access to the highway, there is no logical reason, if a service road is desirable and is included in the plan, why it should attract compensation.
The official view which was put forward in explanation by the Lord Chancellor in another place gives a clear


statement of the position. The noble Lord said:
It happens in planning, as in many other things, that development is considered a good development so long as an addition, such as the one I suggested, a service road giving access, is made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. House of Lords, 1st November, 1954, c. 877.]
The words with point are "development is … a good development." It is the insertion of these conditions—the providing of a proper service road—that makes the development better than it would have been before.
The principle that has been put forward again and again as justifying the Bill is the principle, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), of good neighbourliness: that if all one is required to do is something which any person taking a balanced view of a good development would do, one should not get compensation because one is told to do it. Therefore, the difficulty into which the Government have got and which has led to the Amendment arises really from the original exception which was made of the service road. The only illustration which we have been given of the need for the Amendment is vicious in itself, because the service road should never have been put in this privileged position.
But the Amendment goes much beyond service roads. By the illustration of the service road, we are being led to insert an Amendment which, as my hon. Friend has said, is very wide indeed. It will cover any kind of condition which is put forward, and which is put forward for the general benefit of the community and for the general improvement of the development.
To overcome the difficulty into which the Government have got themselves, they invite the House to expose to compensation a very wide front indeed, a front which throughout the debates on the Bill the Government have again and again said they would not expose. The Government have always taken a firm foothold with the argument that the object of the Bill and the spirit behind it was that there should be, not more compensation than was given under the principal Act, but, in many cases, less compensation.
The predecessor of the present Minister rather mocked us on Second Reading by saying, "I am more progressive

than the Opposition, because I shall not allow compensation in cases where under the 1948 Act it would not have been allowed." We have seen what has happened. Stage by stage and step by step, there has been a retreat from that point of view under the pressure of back benchers and property owners on the other side of the House.
My third complaint is the one which was developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). If we are to have any kind of test, it should be an objective test and not a subjective test. The only objective test that can be applied is, in fact, this: would the planning authority have attached this condition or not? That is something which it might be possible to determine, but why go exploring into the mind of the developer as to what he thought or did not think about what the planning authority would do?
5.30 p.m.
The only important issue is whether this is something which, if left out, would have been put in toy the planning authority? That is a test which might be a workable one, but to go beyond that and say, not only are we to look at it but also at what the developer reasonably contemplated the planning authority might have to do, is something which staggers my imagination and is out of line with the character, as we know it, of the present Minister of Housing and Local Government. Here he seems to be taking unto himself the responsibility of reading into other people's minds and attributing to them certain motives. In other words, he is setting himself up as a kind of psychiatrist for the property owners of this country in order that he can bring out the real motive which has induced them to put this kind of thing in their plans.
What is the significance attached to the word "only"? Drawing from experience going back to compositions during schools days, I can remember that the place where the word "only" came often made a great deal of difference to the general meaning. I do not know whether I have read "only" right or not in this Amendment. As I understand it, in order to prove a case within this Amendment there must be no other motive prompting a developer to put it in except the motive that had he not put it in he would have had his plans thrown out.
In other words, the more materially minded the developer—the developer who will only respond to the lash of the planning authority whip—the greater the chance of getting compensation. The public-spirited developer who takes the broad view, or who says, "I went to the same school as the planning officer and I think it will please him if I put this in," will not be able to get any compensation. The Minister in his position as psychiatrist will not be able to say, "I am satisfied that the only motive operating in the mind of this developer was the fact that he would lose the plan if he did not put any addition in."
That would be a fantastic level of speculation. We are dealing with the paying out of public money to property-owning interests, and we ought to be fairly certain in an objective and impartial way and in a way which can be defended, that we are doing the correct thing. I suggest it is an insult to the House to ask it at this stage of the Bill to accept a clumsily drafted Amendment of this sort, which arises from an initial viciousness in the Bill which we tried to get rid of upstairs in Committee, and which step by step has inevitably brought us to the present situation in which the Minister is put in a position which he himself would be ashamed to accept.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: In a matter of this kind where public money is concerned the House should apprise itself thoroughly and clearly of what this Amendment seeks to do. I would say that in its present form it opens the door wide to abuse. There appears to be a provision here which legalises the use of a ruse or subterfuge in order to get compensation from the public purse. It is an appalling thing to think of, and it is hardly believable that such a doctrine could be enshrined in a public Statute.
Why do I use the terms "ruse" and "subterfuge"? It is for this reason. In this particular provision where there is an application for planning permission in order to carry out some new development of land, certain plans can be put in which really have no relation to the true intention of the applicant at all. The person who is making the application can say, as this provision tells him to, "Well, if I put in a plant in a certain form I will

not get any compensation at all. Then if any question of compensation comes along I shall be despoiled of £x, because I have been foolish and honest enough not to follow out what is prescribed in this particular provision."
The person who makes the application is entitled to put a most elaborate plan on paper in purely theoretical form. It may never see the light of day. But when it comes to a consideration of appraising compensation under this Bill, he will be entitled on that unethical ground to get compensation for something which he never intended to carry out, which has not cost him a penny piece, and yet which may be calculated in pounds, shillings and pence, extracted from the public purse and paid over to him. That seems to me to be an absolute public scandal.
I cannot believe that the Government intend such a legal effect to be given to this particular provision. We ought to be told first of all why this is done. Why should there be this abuse of the public Exchequer, and why are people being encouraged to pretend that they are going to do something not for the purpose of performing it, of really carrying it out, but for the only purpose of converting it into pounds, shillings and pence, in other words, of cashing in on compensation when that comes to be decided?
That is an outrageous thing which cannot be supported on ethical grounds, on any principle of common sense, or upheld in any circumstances. I should have thought that this was the last thing the Government would have done in a Bill of this kind, particularly where people can be compulsorily deprived of their land by local authorities on terms near to confiscation. If those two positions are compared in juxtaposition, namely, deprivation on the one hand and the conferment of this benefit of extra compensation on the other, it is difficult enough to apply a moral rule to this particular provision, much less to attempt any interpretation of that which is quite incomprehensible.

Mr. Skeffington: I think it is right that we should spend a little time on this Amendment, because it does introduce a substantial extension of compensation upon a basis which to us on this side of the House seems not only administratively extremely difficult but morally indefensible. I want first to ask the


Solicitor-General how this Amendment will work in practice. Indeed, I thought we might have heard something about it by this time from the new Minister himself. Perhaps he thinks it easier to administer atomic energy in his old office rather than to find out what this peculiar Bill he has inherited means. It is a subject for comment that he has not yet spoken in the debate. I want first to ask a question about the machinery: how this Clause will work in practice.
I am assuming that I am a developer, who learns in some way or another—I suppose I can learn perfectly properly—that a particular feature is likely to meet with the blessing of the planning authority. I therefore incorpate it in my application. I go to the planning authority and permission is given. How then does the Minister learn about this at all?
Obviously, the developer cannot appeal to the Minister because he has got all he has asked for. Is he in fact to go immediately to that Minister after he has got his planning permission and say "Really I have put in a 'phoney' application. I put in features A, B and C because I knew that the local planning authority would like them, but I was not really serious. Now I want to be compensated"? If that is the basis of the matter, it is completely ridiculous.
As far as I am able to understand, there is nothing in the Amendment which shows how this Clause is to operate and what the machinery is. We ought to have a considered answer on that point, quite apart from the moral aspect of this new provision. It seems to us on these benches that where an improvement of that kind is included in the plan, it will have its effect on the value which will attach to the development and so benefit the developer. Why this sort of development should attract compensation, I do not understand. It seems to us, objective as one tries to be, that this is a particular sort of softness to the private developer which does not exist in relation to other bodies—local authorities, for example—which are concerned with this Bill. It is another concession to property owners.
I hope that we shall have an answer, first of all, on the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) on the impossible position in which the Minister is going to be put, even when he learns somehow of

the application—although we do not know how—and the speculation to which he is to be put as to the motive behind the developer; and secondly, how in any case the Minister is to know about what was included in the application.
I should have thought that a Government which claims for itself rectitude in these matters would have felt that this was opening the door to a most obnoxious feature. I cannot think of any other parallel where one is encouraged to put in an application for something in which one does not believe, and which one has no intention of including in the plan, and having put it in, can then claim money from the public purse, although the features were only inserted in order to get planning permission.
I had hoped that we might have heard something from the Minister himself because he will be the person who will have to decide on the motives of people who apply under this provision. He will be the person, if he is still in his office, of course; I do not know whether he will be; there is an expression about "shifting sands" which may or may not have any connection. I had hoped that the Minister would have felt that it was proper for him to defend this considerable new extension of compensation which he has made on this doubtful principle.

The Solicitor-General: By the leave of the House, and, if I may put the word in its right place, only as a matter of courtesy to hon. Members who have developed these arguments against this Amendment, I would concede that there are arguments both ways about this difficult matter. But perhaps a concrete instance which has actually happened may help to melt their stony hearts on the general principle.
In a certain constituency—not that of any hon. Member whom I see at present in the House—is a very good example. There is a fairly large developed area, developed by numbers of different developers, with service roads in it. The earliest people who put in an application for development of that estate found that the planning authority made the service road a condition of planning permission; and so, of course, every other developer said that he would make a service road with a view to getting his planning permission, the authority having shown where its mind rested.
The result—and this happened under the 1947 Act, so there need be no party bickering about it—is this, that anyone looking at the map of the area will find that, as the law now is, developers A and B, who were not willing to put in a service road unless compelled, may get compensation in respect of the service road, because it was a condition of their application; while the meritorious developers would be left without compensation in respect of the service roads.
5.45 p.m.
That does not seem to us to be quite right, and we think that the balance of justice is secured by a provision of this kind. It is not easy to know where to draw the line. Who is to decide better than the Minister when the circumstances were such that the exclusive, operative factor in the mind of the applicant was his reason to believe that he would not get planning permission without the provision of these works? The Minister is qualified to get all the factors so far as he can.
As for machinery, about which I was asked a question, we are here dealing with compensation for current planning decision, and not past planning decision. Where the Minister so certifies, this matter which was not the subject of condition is to be deemed the subject of condition for the purpose of that planning decision. Therefore, there is really no administrative difficulty, because when the application is made for compensation in relation to that planning decision, and works of this kind exist, then in the course of negotiation the Minister will have to consider whether or not the circumstances are such that he must deem a condition to have existed governing those particular works.
I hope I have cleared up some of the points. I am not quite sure whether I would not like to move the word "only," but that is a matter of grammar rather than of legislative activity. To that extent, I announce my sympathy with the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl).

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am obliged to the Solicitor-General for that reply, but it will not do. I do not propose to cover any ground which my hon. Friends have already amply covered, but if the Solicitor-General will look at the Amendment he will see that this deals with

a planning decision … made after the commencement of this Act.
Therefore, we are not dealing with something which was done in ignorance in the past. We are laying down a code of procedure for the future.
In laying down this code of procedure for the future, we are contemplating that an application for development will be made upon some purely hypothetical kind of footing. Instead of the applicant putting in for the development which he really wants, he puts in for a modified development because he has reason to believe that permission for the original development would not have been granted.
Conditions have got to be inserted because the applicant
had reason to believe"—
whatever that means; however, it has to be proved—
that permission … would not be granted.
Therefore, we have one piece of psychiatric investigation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) so amply put it.
But it does not stop there. It goes on to say, in paragraph (a):
the application shall be deemed to have included … such other development of the land on which the buildings or works were to be erected or constructed as might reasonably have been expected to have been included having regard to the other development to which the application related.
Therefore, one goes through a second psychiatric hoop. One then has to decide not only that he had reason to believe that permission would only be granted on the provisions which he had included, but one also has to decide what he might reasonably have been expected to have included if he did not in fact include what he has in fact included. It is a fantastic proposition. It is not as though one did not have to envisage what the original plan would be, without the provisions inserted for the purpose of obtaining the permission which he has reason to believe would not otherwise be granted. One has to go through the process of inserting in the plan what might reasonably have been in the plan if the applicant had not had reason to believe that the development would have been permitted only with the conditions which he has, in fact, inserted.
Why should we not have a simple, straightforward provision that if an applicant wants compensation he should then in the first place put forward in his plan what he actually wants. The local authority could then say, "In your case this will not do. You must have this and that condition in and then you can claim compensation." Why cannot we have that, instead of reversing the process and leaving the applicant to guess what the local authority would require and leaving the Minister to guess what the applicant would have inserted if the applicant had not made the original guess?

There is not the slightest difficulty about requiring that the processes which the Clause requires—namely, inserting in the application what would have been in the application if the Clause had not been passed—should be gone through before the application is made or when the application is originally made, instead of providing that it should be inserted after going through the hypothetical conundra required by the Clause. Therefore, I advise my hon. Friend to vote against this unjustified provision.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 171.

Division No. 235.]
AYES
[5.51 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S)
Foster, John
Mellor, Sir John


Alport, C. J. M.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Nabarro, G D. N.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Neave, Airey


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Glover, D.
Nicholls, Harmar


Baldwin, A. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Banks, Col. C.
Gough, C. F. H.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Gower, H. R.
Nugent, G R H.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Oakshott, H. D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Grimond, J.
O'Niell, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W D


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Air-Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Page, R. G.


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Partridge, E.


Bowen, E. R.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hay, John
Perkins, Sir Robert


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hon Sir Lionel
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Heath, Edward
Pickthorn, K. W. M


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Higgs, J. M C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitman, I. J.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bullard, D. G.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J
Profumo, J. D.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Campbell, Sir David
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Carr, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Redmayne, M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees-Davies, W R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Remnant, Hon P.


Clark, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Kerr, H. W.
Robertson, Sir David


Cole, Norman
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Leather, E. H. C.
Robson-Brown, W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roper, Sir Harold


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.




Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Russell, R. S.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Deedes, W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Donner, Sir P. W.
McAdden, S. J.
Soames, Capt. C.


Doughty, C. J. A.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Speir, R, M.


Eccles Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Wrwk &amp; Lmgtn)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stewart, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fell, A.
Marples, A. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Finlay, Graeme
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Fisher, Nigel
Maudling, R.
Teeling, W.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)




Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Vosper, D. F.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Wade, D. W.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Thorneycroft, Rt.Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Wall, Major Patrick
Woollam, John Victor


Touche, Sir Gordon
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)



Turton, R. H.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Vane, W. M. F.
Wellwood, W.
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Wills.




NOES


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hayman, F. H.
Peart, T. F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Popplewell, E


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holman, P.
Probert, A. R.


Balfour, A.
Holmes, Horace
Proctor, W. T


Bartley, P.
Houghton, Douglas
Reeves, J.


Bence, C. R.
Hoy, J. H.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Benson, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Bowden, H. W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jeger, George (Goole)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brockway, A. F.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Skeffington, A. M.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Callaghan, L. J.
Keenan, W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Champion, A. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Snow, J. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Lawson, G. M.



Chetwynd, G. R.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sparks, J. A.


Clunie, J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Steele, T.


Coldrick, W.
Lewis, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Collick, P. H.
Lindgren, G. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Collins, V. J.
Lipton, Lt-Col. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Cove, W. G.
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McInnes, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Daines, P.
McLeavy, F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Deer, G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Warbey, W. N.


Dodds N. N.
Mason, Roy
Weitzman, D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Mayhew, C. P.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mellish R. J.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Messer, Sir F.
West, D. G.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mikardo, Ian
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fienburgh, W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Morley, R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Follick, M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, A.
Willey, F. T.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Gibson, C. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oswald, T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Padley, W. E
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F
Yates, V. F.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Pannell, Charles



Hamilton, W. W.
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannan, W.
Parkin, B. T.
Mr. James Johnson and


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paton, J.
Mr. Wallace.


Hastings, S.
Pearson, A



Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: On this Amendment a Special Entry is being made in the Journals.
Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 16, at end, insert:
or by virtue of any regulations made under paragraph 13 of the said Schedule (which relates to certain applications under the

Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935)

6.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Under Sections 1 and 2 of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935,


people have to get consents. In so far as consent proceedings were not completed they were made under the principal Act to be dealt with under the principal Act if they had not been finally determined by the time those Sections were repealed by the principal Act. It is right that such decisions should be treated as planning decisions under this Act and that is what the Amendment does.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 19.—(RIGHT TO COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF PLANNING DECISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 1, after "powers," insert:
(not being statutory undertakers or the National Coal Board)".

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of this Amendment is to exclude statutory undertakers and the National Coal Board from the operation of subsection (2) of the Clause and to leave their position in the matter of compensation to be solely determined by subsection (4). The main reason for disqualifying statutory undertakers and the Coal Board from claiming compensation under Part II of the Bill is that special provision is made in the Fifth Schedule of the 1947 Act for compensation for planning restrictions on operational land. This overlap is effectively eliminated by subsection (4) without the application of subsection (2) and that is why we move to agree to the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In line 38, leave out subsection (6).

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I fail to see why this is a purely drafting Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why it is. The subsection which is to be left out deals with the position of a mortgagee. It may be necessary to do so because of the general scheme and the mortgagee does not appear elsewhere, but what is contemplated in that case? Is it contemplated that the mort-

gagee shall have recourse to the moneys in the hands of the mortgagor? If that is intended what is the machinery for ensuring that that is to take place?
Secondly, if a mortgagee is a mortgagee in occupation he may have become the "tenant" under the mortgage. Is he to be treated as a tenant, or does his position automatically exclude him from being treated as a tenant under the Bill?

Mr. Deedes: I think I can give the explanation the hon. and learned Member wants. This subsection is superfluous because the definition of interest in land in Clause 68 precludes a mortgagee from claiming in respect of his own interest. The position of mortgagees, about which the hon. and learned Gentleman asked, will be safeguarded by regulations to be made under Clause 65.

Clause 20.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION.)

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 27, transpose Clause 20 to after Clause 27.

Clause 21.—(COMPENSATION EXCLUDED IN CERTAIN CASES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 3, leave out from "which" to second "or" in line 4 and insert:
consists of or includes the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment. Apprehension has arisen in quarters well qualified to have their apprehensions actively attended to that it is something more than a drafting provision. If necessary, I would set about persuading the House that there is no need for apprehension on ground level if the House so desires, but it would be a long and necessarily technical process and I think I might begin by seeing whether the House desires further explanation or not.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I should like to have a fuller explanation of this Amendment. I am a little puzzled about it as the provision does not seem to be quite the same as the words it replaces.


I imagine that the Solicitor-General will refer to the definition of use in the 1947 Act. Perhaps he is relying on that. I am puzzled by the words as they stand, particularly by the use of the word "includes." If we can have an explanation of that I shall be obliged.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: I am apprehensive about this Amendment. On the face of it, it seems to me rather more than a drafting Amendment, for reasons which I must ask the House to bear with me while I try to explain them. As the Solicitor-General said, it is a very technical matter, but it is one which I think we ought not to pass without receiving further assurance from the Government Front Bench.
As I see it, in another place the Government changed this Clause from a negative to a positive form. Before it left us it said that compensation in this part of the Act
shall not be payable in respect of refusal of permission for any development which does not consist in the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations.
Now it comes back to us from another place in a positive form, the words being that compensation
shall not be payable … (a) in respect of the refusal of permission for any development which consists of or includes the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) that the material words are "or includes." It seems to me that, in the form we are now asked to pass this Clause, it is possible—I do not put it higher—that we may exclude from compensation the great majority of refusals of planning permission under Parts II and V of the Bill.
Let me say straight away that we accept the point of view—I think we must, although we may not agree with it, but it has been germane to the whole of our discussions both on this Bill and the Scottish Bill—that the intention of the Government is that there should be no compensation for refusal of permission for a change of use. We may not like it, but that seems to me to be germane to the whole of the discussions in both Houses of Parliament.
But what of the case where planning permission is refused for development consisting of the erection of buildings which, when they are occupied, will constitute a change in the use of the land? The difficulty arises from the use of the words, "or includes." I do not know whether I shall make myself clear, but I hope that I shall do so, by quoting from the principal Act.
I ask the House to look at Section 18 (3) of the principal Act, which states:
Where permission is granted under this Part of the Act for the erection of a building, the grant of permission may specify the purposes for which the building may be used; and if no purpose is so specified, the permission shall be construed as including permission to use the building for the purpose for which it is designed.
If that means anything at all, it seems to me to mean that permission to erect a building includes permission to use it for certain purposes when erected. In future, it seems to me, if the House passes this Amendment in the form in which it is proposed, and if the occupation of the house erected is different from the purpose for which the land was occupied before the application for planning permission, then a material change of use occurs.
It is always easier if one gives a specific instance, and with the permission of the House, I will endeavour to do so. Suppose I were the owner of a piece of rough scrubland or woodland which was used for little other than amenity purposes, perhaps for some rough shooting or something of that kind, which kept the land open. Suppose I wanted to build a house on it for my own occupation. I should apply for planning permission, and I might get that to build a house. And when that house had been completed, I should occupy it. In so doing, under the terms of Section 18 (3) of the principal Act, I should be changing the use of the land.
If that be so—and I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will be able to assure me that that is not the legal effect, because I am not a lawyer—it seems to me to be ruling out people who are refused planning permission to build a house in the Green Belt, for example. Because they embark on the development of building a house in the Green Belt, and then occupy it, that becomes a material change of use which is excluded from compensation by the terms of this


Amendment. I hope that that is not the case, but I should like an assurance.
I will put a direct question to the learned Solicitor-General in which I will try to crystallise my argument in as non-legal and non-technical language as I can. Does the Amendment which another place proposes to insert in this Clause exclude compensation where development for which permission is refused would, had the permission been granted, have involved the erection of buildings and their subsequent use for a purpose for which they are intended, but which differs from that for which the land was being used before development took place? Does the Amendment exclude compensation in such cases? That is the question I wish to ask, and upon which the whole of my argument hangs.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Irvine: Had the learned Solicitor-General not assured the House that this was a drafting Amendment, I do not think that there would have been any other reason to be found for regarding it only as a drafting Amendment. Whatever may be the intention, I suggest that the consequences of the proposed wording are a great deal more serious.
Broadly speaking, I share the view of the possible effect of this provision which was voiced by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley). I do not think that my repercussions to that interpretation are necessarily the same, but I am inclined to agree with that view. It seems to me possible that this wording may have the effect of eliminating a large number of cases which the whole tenor and mechanism of the Bill made the subject of compensation and it is obviously better that the matter should be clear.
This, of course, is a remarkably confiscatory Bill. It is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable events of recent years, that it has been put through by a Conservative Government. I believe about this Bill that if the Government knew what they were doing, they would not be doing it. But although it is a confiscatory Bill, I do not think that it is intended to be as confiscatory as this so-called drafting Amendment appears to make it.
I should have thought that it would take a tremendous lot of argument to

persuade anyone that the proposed words, "or includes" have not the effect of making the exemption from compensation very extensive indeed. Even within a rather narrower definition than that, there is this further objection which I would put before the House. It may often be a desirable feature of any particular development to incorporate into the scheme, in the plans put forward, a proposal for a material change in the use of the existing buildings.
That may often be a desirable thing from the planning point of view, but even on that narrower interpretation, this Amendment will have the effect of discouraging that kind of proposal, that kind of development, from being made the subject of a request for permission; because a scheme will not be put forward proposing that kind of desirable feature if it is known that the effect of incorporating a material change in the use of an existing building would be to eliminate compensation for refusal. So on that narrower ground, as well as on the wider ground, it seems to me that the proposed Amendment is open to serious objection.

The Solicitor-General: I hope that now, by leave of the House, I may be allowed an opportunity to make an explanation of what my assurance that this is a drafting Amendment is based. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will acquit me of any discourtesy in not giving it before when they hear how abominably technical it necessarily has to be. But I refuse to be discouraged by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), who says that it would take many words to satisfy him. I will endeavour to be brief about it.
Would the House bear in mind the principle on which all this planning legislation has been working? It has always been that the use of a building is something distinct from the use of land. When one puts up a building, it is prescribed by statute that that is not to be a use of land. When one puts up a building on land, the land, by reason of one's putting a building upon it, ceases to have a use as land. What is substituted is the use of a building.
The first use of the new building is controlled at the stage when the planning authority is asked to give permission for


the erection of the building, the reason being that the building, being brand new, has no existing use—nothing from which to start. Once it has an existing use, then a material change in the use of the building, under the principal Act, would be a development to be controlled as such. With these things in mind, I ask hon. Members who feel these apprehensions to consider how the matter stands in law.
Section 18 (3) of the 1947 Act, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) read, deals with the moment when a new building has been put up and it has no existing use. The Section is necessary to bridge a gap, as it were, that would exist if no use of the new building were permitted. Where it has no existing use, control is exercised by the authority giving permission for the erection of the building, either by specifying how it should be used or having it impliedly specified—if one may use that phrase—that it is to be used for the purposes for which the building is designed.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns and other hon. Members will have noticed that nothing in that Section relates to any change of use of any sort or kind and nothing in that Section advances at all towards the proposition that the use of a building, as a building, is a use of land. One would get the most absurd position if it did.
Let me take the case of land in use as a car park for years and then, pursuant to permission, a great block of offices is erected on it. It would be manifestly absurd, in common sense or law, to suppose that the use of a car park still went on as the existing use of the land, after the building had been put upon it. When one puts a building on land, one puts a stop to the use of the land and creates a new entity, a building, which is to start with the use of the building.
What is excluded by the words that the Lords Amendment would propose to insert, are two categories of development, that which includes a material change in the use of the building and, a second category, development which includes a material change in the use of the other land, which means land other than buildings. The words come out of Section 12.

What is not excluded is development which involves the change from one category to another—from the category of the use of land to the category of use of building. That is included.
When my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns asks me the direct question whether compensation would be excluded by these words in the case of a developer who took, for instance, agricultural land and then built a cottage on the agricultural land and lived in it—he asked whether compensation would be excluded because there is involved in that process a change from agricultural land to a residence—the answer is, no. That is not excluded. It is not excluded by these words, because the use of the building is never a use of land in any sense. A use of a building for residence is not a use of the land. It would be contrary to all the principles by which this has ever been worked. The words do not have that effect.
I hope that in that analysis of what the wording means, I have satisfied hon. Members that this is a drafting Amendment and that is as briefly as I can state it.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: By leave of the House, I should like to say how grateful I am, as, I think, are all those who felt some disquiet about this, for the very clear explanation which my hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, has given us and which I may say, straight away, removes all the anxieties which I felt.

Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 31, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
(a) the order of priority, if any, indicated in the development plan for the area in which the land is situated for development in that area;.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
During our earlier debates it was suggested that the use of the word "stages" might give rise to difficulty and the then Minister undertook to try to find a better form of words. These are hose words.

Mr. Skeffington: I think I was one of those who raised this point. I very clearly remember the argument about the wording of this subsection. It seems to us that the words "order of priority" are better than "stage" in this connection.


I take it that if anyone were dissatisfied with the decision of a local authority in excluding a claim for compensation because of this subsection, they would still be able, under other provisions, to appeal to the Minister.
In general, I strongly approve of this exception. Obviously, a local authority in considering development, for example, on the borders of a town, will want to see that the development takes place in some proper order for the very simple reason that one cannot simultaneously provide five or six main drainage schemes, or lighting schemes. Therefore, I am very much in support of the proviso. But if there were a decision of the planning authority which might be considered to be frivolous, or perverse, I take it the normal machinery for appeal does exist.

Mr. Deedes: By leave of the House, I am able to give the hon. Member the assurance he seeks. The answer is, yes.

Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 40, leave out "ten" and insert "seven."

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The effect of this Amendment is to reduce from 10 years to seven years the maximum period during which compensation can be withheld on the ground that development of the land would be premature. There was, as hon. Members who took part in earlier discussion will remember, considerable discussion on this point in Committee, during which the Minister undertook to consider introducing a shorter period of between five and 10 years. That is the purpose of this Amendment.

Mr. Skeffington: Can we have some reasons why the period of seven years has finally been decided? I know there have been all kinds of suggestions put forward. Some people have suggested that the period should be as long as 15 years. The effect of this Amendment, in some cases will be to extend the measure of compensation. Could we have a little more detail in explanation of the Government's decision to finally decide upon seven years?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Deedes: I speak again by leave of the House. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is very varied opinion about what would be the right period.

No period is self-evidently right. In both this House and another place, there has been argument for as little as five years and periods of 10 years or even 15 years have been advocated. In fact, we are here dealing with the case where the planning authority considers that the land is suitable for the proposed development but the development ought to be deferred under the provisions of the development plan or in relation to the availability of services.
It was not clear from what the hon. Gentleman said whether he thought that seven years was too long or too short a period. One point to be considered is that developers do not always wait until they are ready to start before they apply for planning permission, preliminary steps often being taken a year or more in advance, and the subsection may encourage an even earlier start. In effect, there are few people to whom the period of seven years will apply. The period may be considerably less for a large number.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 23.—(MEASURE OF DEPRECIATION FOR ASSESSING COMPENSATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 38, after "land" insert:
or of an interest in so far as it subsists in particular land".

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the first of several Amendments which are all related, and they are almost entirely of a drafting character. It may be for the convenience of the House if I now say a few words of general explanation to show what their total effect is. The one change of substance is that made in subsection (3) by the Amendment to page 30, line 15. It is obvious that the assessment of depreciation should take account of all previous planning decisions and revocation or modification orders which give rise to the payment of compensation or depreciation and not merely those decisions which have given rise to compensation under Part II.
The changes which result are, in the main, caused by suppressing Clause 24 and incorporating its matter into Clause 23. Clause 24 has been dwindling in earlier stages, and it now disappears and


is transposed into Clause 23. The advantage is that all the directions to the valuer are now to be found within a single Clause.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 29, line 40, leave out "and the next following."

In page 29, line 43, leave out from "arises" to end of line 4 on page 30.

In page 30, line 5, leave out "of the interest" and insert "in question."

In page 30, line 9, leave out from "decision" to end of line 11 and insert:
by any grant of planning permission made after that decision and in force immediately before the Minister gives notice of his findings on the claim for compensation in respect of that decision, and by any undertaking to grant planning permission so in force; and
(c) on the assumption that, after the relevant decision and apart from any such permission or undertaking as aforesaid, planning permission would be granted for development of any class specified in the Third Schedule to the principal Act but not for any other development."—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 15, leave out from "Part" to end of line 19 and insert:
or Part V of this Act, or compensation for depreciation within the meaning of subsection (3) of section thirty-eight of this Act, has become, or becomes, payable in respect of another planning decision or in respect of an order to which the said section thirty-eight applies, being a planning decision or order made before the relevant decision in respect of, or of land which includes, the whole or part of the land to which the relevant decision relates, the calculation called for by the last preceding subsection shall be made on the assumption that that other planning decision was a decision to the contrary effect or, as the case may be, that that order was not made.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is also consequential upon the first of the series.

Mr. MacColl: Could the hon. Gentleman explain the precise effect of introducing the consideration of Part V together with this part? I should like to know, quite simply, what is likely to be the effect upon the amount of compensation to be obtained. I had thought the effect would be to reduce the compensation, but as this is a Privilege Amendment it will, apparently, increase the charge upon public funds and I must have misread it. It

would be helpful if we could be clear about what we are approving. Might I have an answer?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Surely we are to have an answer. It is a very simple question, whether there is an increase or a decrease of the charge as a result of the Amendment. There is also the point of the effect of bringing in Part V in this way in relation to compensation, which is dealt with under Part II. It is puzzling to see all this chucked into one subsection.

Mr. Deedes: I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend It is a technical point and it is as well to get the answer right. The Amendment will have the effect of decreasing compensation.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Might we also know why Part V is brought in here? It is a puzzling way to deal with it. We are all rather at a loss to understand it.

Mr. Deedes: I said on the earlier Amendment that the instructions to the valuer and the rest of what was formerly in Clause 24 are now incorporated in Clause 23. There has been no change, in fact, principle or definition. It is simply a lumping together in Clause 23 of what was previously in Clause 24. There is no substantial change. I agree that it is a very comprehensive piece of drafting, but I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept what I say.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 30, line 28, leave out from "refused" to end of line 29.

In page 30, line 31, at end insert "applied for."

In page 30, leave out lines 34 and 35.

In page 30, transpose Clause 23 to after Clause 27.

Clause 24.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CALCULATION OF DEPRECIA TION.)

In page 30, line 36, leave out Clause 24.

Clause 25.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 14, to leave out "in any other case" and insert:
unless the claim is withdrawn.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment. It seems desirable that owners of other interests should be notified of the making of a claim if the claimant refuses to accept the Minister's contention that his claim fails at the outset. The reason is that, under Clause 28 (1, c), notices of the Minister's findings can only be sent to persons who have made a claim for compensation, and it is on the findings that the right of reference to the Lands Tribunal hangs. Absence of the preliminary notice might mean that those concerned were not aware that they could lodge a claim. This Amendment will obviate that.

Clause 26.—(REVIEW OF PLANNING DECISIONS WHERE COMPENSATION CLAIMED.)

Subsequent Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 9, at end, insert "applied for" agreed to.

Clause 27.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO REVIEW OF PLANNING DECISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 28, leave out from "shall" to end of line 31 and insert:
give notice in writing of his proposed direction to the local planning authority to whose decision that direction relates and to any person who made, and has not since withdrawn, a claim in respect of that decision, and, if so required by that authority or by any such person, shall afford to each of them an opportunity.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment makes it clear that those concerned are to be informed of their right to be heard. It was always intended that, as a matter of practice, they should be so made aware of their rights, but it is better to have it absolutely clear on the face of the statute.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: This is a purely machinery provision, the point of which was raised by my noble Friend Lord Silkin elsewhere. It is an important provision, and we certainly welcome it.

Clause 29.—(APPORTIONMENT AND REGISTRATION OF COMPENSATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 35, line 33, leave out "is" and insert "has become."

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a purely drafting Amendment. The present wording might be taken as implying that the notice to be registered in the register of local land charges could not be given once payment of the compensation had been made. This makes it clear.

Clause 30.—(RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION ON SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 27, after "compensation" insert:
in so far as it is attributable to that land.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This, again, is a drafting Amendment. The present wording is defective so far as concerns cases where the remission of compensation is confined to part of the area on which the original payment was made. In such circumstances, the compensation registered against land not affected by the remission should obviously remain recoverable; but, as the subsection stands, only the sum remitted would remain on the register. The Amendment clarifies the point.

Question put, and agreed to. (Special Entry.)

Clause 31.—(APPLICATION OF PART III.)

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 38, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 on page 39 and insert:
'the relevant interest' means the interest acquired;
'the relevant land' means the land in which the relevant interest subsists;
'the notice to treat' means the notice to treat in pursuance of which the relevant interest is acquired;

In page 39, line 19, leave out subsection (3).

Clause 32.—(COMPENSATION TO INCLUDE UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF ESTAB LISHED DEVELOPMENT VALUE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 39, line 31, leave out from second "to" to end of line 37 on page 40, and insert:
section thirty-four of this Act there shall be added to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section—

(a) where the relevant interest is the only interest (other than excepted interests) subsisting at that time in any of the relevant land which has such a balance, an amount equal to that balance at that time less, in a case when the relevant interest is subject to a rentcharge, any rental liability of that interest within the meaning of the Schedule (Apportionment of unexpended balance of established development value) to this Act; or
(b) where the relevant interest is one of two or more interests (other than excepted interests) so subsisting, an amount equal to so much of that balance at that time as is ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the said Schedule to be attributable to the relevant interest:


Provided that no payment shall be made by virtue of this section if the relevant interest is a tenancy granted on such terms that, immediately before the service of the notice to treat, the person entitled to that interest is prohibited from carrying out any new development of the relevant land.
(2) Regulations made under this section shall provide.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment introduces the new Schedule, and it is really impossible to consider it without, relating it to the division of the unexpended balance between competing interests on compulsory acquisition. I think the matter might shortly be dealt with in this way. Although the Amendment looks a most formidable piece of new legislation, it really does not alter in any way the principle which the House has approved that, in the case of the compulsory acquisition of land which has an unexpended balance of development value, there is to be paid to the owner of each interest which is acquired so much of the balance as is attributable to that interest.
The reason why the redrafting has occurred is really twofold. First of all, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) asked us, and we agreed, that

as far as possible the Bill should be self-contained, and by using the new Schedule it is possible to get rid of regulations, except procedural regulations. That has been done, and it was necessary to include a reference to the rent charge and matters already dealt with.

6.45 p.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: This is certainly an improvement, and we welcome it. In the Bill originally, the principles dealt with were merely the principles of compensation dealing with cases where there was one interest in the land or even two interests, but, extraordinary as it may appear, where there were more than two interests, there was nothing provided at all.
The original suggestion by the Government was that, where there were more than two interests, all the principles dealing with compensation were to be dealt with by regulation. It seemed to us to be rather a staggering proposition that such an important and vital matter of principle should be handled in that way, instead of dealing with it in the Bill itself. We are grateful that the Government have listened to our arguments and have made an improvement in the Bill.
As one who has been extremely critical of the drafting of the Bill, I very much welcome the improvement which has been made, particularly in the proviso which appears in the Amendment. I believe it is new in substance. It is an improvement, and we certainly welcome it. The earlier part of the Amendment refers to the compensation being additional to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest, apart from the provisions of this Clause. It seems to me that we might perhaps have an estimate made of how the total compensation works out, and particularly how this proviso in the Amendment fits into the general scheme. As the Solicitor-General has referred to the new Schedule, perhaps it would be convenient to deal, with the two together, as that would save time in the long run.
I should like to have a fuller explanation of certain parts of the new Schedule. The first part is perfectly clear until we come to the question of preliminary calculations. I do not wish to ask any questions on the earlier part of the Schedule, which I think is lucid enough.


In regard to the provisions about preliminary calculations, however, we are dealing with cases of tenancies, first of all, and then we come to the cases of an interest in the reversion. Perhaps we could be told in rather more simple language than is used in the Schedule exactly what this Schedule means.
There is one other small point of detail. The new Schedule, in dealing with a tenancy, refers to the case where
so much of the rent reserved … exceeds the existing use rent, there shall be calculated the capital value of the right to receive … an annual payment equal to the excess;
and reference is also made to "the rental liability." What happens if the rent received is less than the existing use rent? I do not know if the point is covered by paragraph (5), but we are concerned about the application of the details in paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of the new Schedule.

Mr. Speaker: If it is convenient to the House to discuss the proposed new Schedule now together with this Lords Amendment, it will be on the understanding that it is dealt with now once and for all.

Mr. Skeffington: We are grateful that this Amendment, complicated though it looks, has been included. It makes the Bill more self-contained and does away with the need for regulations, other than procedural regulations. As we have not had much chance to study the Amendment or the proposed new Schedule, will the Solicitor-General tell us how the interest on the unexpended balance will be paid in the case of a freeholder and a leaseholder? We do not quite follow the principle. No doubt that is our fault, but we have not had the Amendment and the proposed new Schedule before us for very long. I should be grateful to have the point answered.

The Solicitor-General: If the House will give me leave, I will try to deal with these matters. First of all, I should like to say a few words about the next clause. That concerns what should be the compensation on compulsory acquisition additional to that which, under existing provisions, the person gets whose interest is compulsorily acquired. It applies only to cases where the existing use value which he will get under other provisions relating to compensation does not properly reflect the additional value of

works. That is why one has, in legislation, to exclude cases where the value of works is already reflected in the existing use value.
Under the Amendment, the exclusions are twofold. Under paragraph (a) of the proviso, the exclusion will be where, by virtue of other provisions, the existing use value already takes into account the value of the works. That would be apart from other provisions. The simplest example would be Clause 34, or Clause 35, or other provision of that kind.
Speaking as between lawyers, I might say that the exclusions in paragraph (a) of the proviso are exclusions where the planning permission in question is still executory and has not been developed into buildings or works. The exclusions in paragraph (b) as it will be when amended are, by contrast, exclusions where the planning permission has been executed and has taken the form of factual, actual development.
The reason why the method is adopted of legislating by value is that it is a little tiresome to say, of a building, in terms of legislation, when it is completed. We get rid of the difficulty, and the remaining part of the amended proviso applies the same principle where the notice to treat applied only to part of the land. The effect is to confine the change in compensation to the part where the development has not been completed. That is clearly so.
I turn with a sense of humility to the proposed new Schedule. I do not purport to be an expert in valuation, but perhaps I may pick up some of the threads in the minds of hon. Members who have been thinking about the Bill in respect of valuation. Under other provisions, the owner of the interest is to get compensation for the existing use value. Let us take as an example the case of landlord and tenant. The landlord is to be compensated for his right to receive, at the end of the term, the unexpended balance of the development value, or, to speak more accurately, the present capital value of a right in futuro to receive it at the end of the term. That is what the Schedule terms "reversionary development value."
The other element of my supposed landlord's interest for which he may be compensated is, of course, his right to


receive the rent year by year, week by week, or whatever it may be, during the remainder of the term. The complication arises that he is already, under other provisions, entitled to compensation for the existing use value, so that in so far as the rent which the landlord receives from his tenant exceeds the rent appropriate to the existing use value, there is, in the rent which he receives, already an element of development value.
If his compensation under other provisions is calculated by reference to the rent which he in fact receives, he would be paid twice over if he got that element of development value paid additionally out of the unexpended balance of development value. That is the fundamental problem. Perhaps I may take a specimen for the purpose of explanation. It is a case of landlord and tenant, but the landlord's freehold is subject to a rent charge. This is the easiest way of dealing with the matter.
Perhaps hon. Members would think of the principles which I have just been describing in this way: what is the landlord entitled to, in those circumstances, by way of additional compensation out of the unexpended balance? Element one is what the Schedule calls "reversionary development value," but less, of course, a factor. I regret that this matter is so tiresome but I know of no way of making it less so. The factor I shall call "A minus B." A is the amount by which the rent payable by the landlord in respect of the rent charge exceeds the existing use rent. B is the amount by which the rent receivable by him from his tenant exceeds the existing use rent.
The new Schedule defines "existing use rent" in paragraph 2, the amount by which the rent payable exceeds the existing use rent, as "rental liability," in paragraph 3 (b) and it defines, in paragraph 3, the amount of the rental increment. In paragraph 5, hon. Members will find applied the precise principles which I have been describing. I hope that this explanation makes the matter as plain as one reasonably can make it.
The paragraph says:
In the case of the interest in fee simple, an amount equal to the reversionary development value of that interest less the amount, if any, by which any rental liability of that interest exceeds any rental increment thereof.

That is my factor "A minus B" precisely. In the case of a tenancy in reversion, exactly the same thing applies. The head landlord has to pay a rent which, for the purpose of my example, would serve as equivalent to that payable under the rent charge. For this purpose the same principle applies in sub-paragraph (c) in the case of a tenancy other than a tenancy in reversion. I hope that the principle is now quite clear. No useful purpose would be served by working through the paragraphs, provided that I have made clear the principles upon which the plan works.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: We are most grateful to the Solicitor-General for the most clear explanation he has given. I would ask him a question which puts in rather different form the question which, rather more clumsily, I tried to raise in my opening remarks. What happens in the factor "A minus B" if B exceeds A? That is what bothered me about this matter. I could not see what happened and how that picture would fit into the general scheme of the new Schedule. I thought that perhaps it might be covered by paragraph 5, but I was not sure. If the Solicitor-General could deal with the point we should be grateful.

7.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I think it is, because all the way through the paragraph the phrase used is the "excess," if any. In that case, it is not a factor of excess over existing use value, the existing use value having been conferred by other provisions outside this Schedule. The difficulty of thinking about it is that one is always dealing with the exceptional case. The fundamental case has already been dealt with outside the Schedule altogether.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 33.—(ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR WORKS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 13, after "apply" insert "(a)".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is intended merely to construct formally paragraph (a) of the proviso.

Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 19, at end insert:
or
(b) if the compensation on the basis of existing use payable in respect of the acquisition would be the same whether or not the said subsection (4) operated;
and where, if the notice to treat had extended to a part only of the relevant land, the amount of the compensation on the basis of existing use payable in respect of the relevant interest in so far as it subsisted in that part would have been the same whether or not the said subsection (4) operated, this section shall have effect as respects the acquisition of the relevant interest as if the notice to treat had extended only to the remainder of the relevant land.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As I have already explained, this Amendment is designed to introduce in tidy form the element related to the case where the planning permission is already executed.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 24, leave out from "constructed" to "a" in line 27 and insert:
there shall be added to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is partly of a drafting nature and is partly intended to cure certain defects in the interrelation of Clauses 33 and 34. Hon. Members will remember that at present Clause 34 (3) says that Clauses 32 and 33 are not to apply. In fact, that is correct in the case of Clause 32, because in that case the purchaser gets the value for development. Under Clause 34, he gets the value of the land plus the value of permission to develop. But it is wrong to exclude Clause 33 because there may be cases where both Clauses ought to apply.
The instance which hon. Members will think of is that where the developer, after he has bought the land, changes his mind, gets permission for some new kind of development and carries out the work. In the form in which the Bill now stands he would not get any compensation, and that is clearly wrong.

Clause 34.—(PROTECTION FOR PROSPEC TIVE PURCHASERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 41, leave out from "by" to "stating" in line 44 and insert:
any person with respect to particular land in the borough or district, to serve on the applicant, within a period of twenty-eight days from the date of the receipt of the application, a notice.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
If the House agrees, I think it would be convenient if we discussed with this Amendment the next four Amendments which arise on this Clause. They are all so very much interrelated that I think it would be difficult to do otherwise. Two of them, the one in page 41, line 41, and the other in page 42, line 30, are purely drafting. The other three Amendments, as I have said, are very much interrelated.
The purpose of the Amendment in page 42, line 4, is to enable the prospective purchaser who is applying for a statement from the local authority about its intentions, or the intentions of other local authorities, to acquire any of the land in future, to obtain somewhat fuller information in reply to his inquiry than was provided for in the Bill as originally drafted.
Paragraph (a) of the Amendment requires the local authority to state not only whether any public authority has notified its intention to acquire the land, but actually to give the name of the authority in question. This will enable the owner, if he wishes, to pursue his inquiries with the authority concerned.
Paragraph (b) of the same Amendment picks up a point previously overlooked. The Bill as it stands provides that the local authority is required to give only the simple answer, "Yes" or "No," to the question whether it or any other public authority to its knowledge has plans for acquiring the land in question or any part of it. That means that if the authority had plans to acquire some small part of the land, the answer it would have to give would be that it was aware of an intention to acquire the land, but it would not have to specify that, in point of fact, it was a very small part of the land about which inquiry was being made. It might


very well have no intention of acquiring any part of the remainder of the land.
The purpose of this Amendment is to require the local authority in such cases to specify precisely what part of the land in question it is proposed to acquire so that the owner may get the benefit of the protection of Clause 34 in respect of the remainder of the land in regard to which there is no intention to acquire. The first and third parts of the Amendment, in page 42, line 8, relate to this same point and are consequential.
The remaining part of the Amendment—paragraph (b)—deals with the case of a person who has not actually completed all the legal formalities involved in the purchase of the land, but who has, in fact, reached the point in his negotiations where he has entered into a binding contract to purchase.
The protection offered by Clause 34, as it now stands, does not cover a man in that position, but, quite obviously, ought to extend that protection to him. Paragraph (b) of the Amendment, taken together with the first proviso in the Amendment, in page 42, line 32, have been put down to clarify this point.
Subsection (3) of the Amendment, in page 42, line 32, deals with the case where a local authority fails to reply to, or is unduly dilatory in replying to, an inquiry by a prospective purchaser of land in its area. The Amendment provides that if an applicant does not receive a reply to his inquiry within the specified period of 28 days, the local authority shall be deemed to have given him a satisfactory assurance to the effect that neither it nor, so far as it knows, any other public authority is, in fact, planning to acquire the land in question. In that way, the man gets the benefit of the protection. It would be quite unfair for a man engaged in negotiations for the purchase of land to be indefinitely held up by the failure of the authority to send him a reply.
Subsection (4) of the same Amendment permits a fee of 5s. to be charged in respect of these applications, the object being to discourage idle inquiries. The last two paragraphs of the same Amendment, that is to say, subsection (5) and the proviso which follows, contain purely drafting and consequential points. As the House will see, they cover the same

ground as subsection (3) of the Clause as it now stands.

Mr. MacColl: I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for these proposals. In its original form the Clause was rather dubious, although it was possible to develop a quite impressive argument for it, but the Amendments make it exceedingly suspect.
In the first place, the Minister spoke of "purely drafting Amendments." When we are told that an Amendment is purely drafting it always makes us suspicious. One Amendment proposes to take out the words
a person who proposes to purchase an interest,
which is a fairly clear designation of the inquirer, showing that he is a person who in good faith is an intending purchaser, and to substitute the words "any person."
It is true that it might not always be easy to establish that a person who says he is a bona fide purchaser is not, but at any rate it ought to be clear, before these inquiries can be made, that the applicant is a person who, in good faith, has an interest in the matter in hand.
I can see considerable difficulties here from the point of view of the public authority concerned. For example, it is a well-known principle in local government practice that the rule that a member of a local council has access to papers of the authority applies only where he wants them for the purposes of his public duty and not where he has some ulterior motive for getting hold of them. That has been laid down by the courts and is a well-established principle.
Precisely the same principle ought to apply here. The Clause gives outsiders certain rights to make inquiries and to find out information from public authorities about their future intentions. Surely it ought to be made clear that that course will not be open to any member of the public who happens, for one reason or another, to have some interest, which may be bona fide but which may be a matter of idle curiosity, which may be a desire to know who is his next-door neighbour or may even be some form of corruption. It should not be possible for somebody in that position to put themselves within the protection of the Clause.
It seems to me that this Amendment is an unhappy one and one for which very


little case has been made: It is true, of course, that to some extent a fence is provided by the 5s. application fee, but 5s. is a grotesquely small amount in comparison with the kind of sums which may be involved. If it were intended to use a financial barrier, then it should have been a substantial barrier. There is not much point in introducing a sum as small as this, which certainly will not discourage the person who makes an application in bad faith.
That is my first criticism, and my second criticism concerns the Amendment in page 42, line 4. What is the case for giving the increased powers to members of the public to obtain information about the future intentions of these authorities? There are provisions in town planning practice for the designation of areas where public authorities are likely to require them for future use. Clause 34, in its existing form, provides that the inquirer is to be able to find out not just that the local authority has future intentions but even the identity of the public authority. Again, I emphasise, the word "inquirer" has a very wide meaning. He may have no commercial interest in the matter but may simply be trying to draft his election address. It seems to me that this provision will cause a good deal of concern to authorities.
There is a long tradition behind all this. Some of it may be emotional, but some of it is fairly well-founded on experience. Public authorities keep their intentions concerning land very quiet indeed, and to ask a public authority to tell even its own members what are its future proposals is in many cases like asking for the key to the harem. It strikes at the very root of the desire of the public authority to prevent any kind of corruption or leakages which may lead to the market being rigged against it, which may lead to some step being taken which may embarrass it in its future intentions and which may lead to any of the deplorable practices which, fortunately not often but from time to time, happen in the conduct of these affairs.
It seems to me that this is a mischievous proposal. The Clause in its original form provided all the protection which was needed. Indeed, it may have provided too much protection. At any rate, it provided all that was needed. In its new form it will be liable to very

grave abuse. We should be most reluctant to accept the Amendment.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Unlike the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), I very strongly welcome the Amendments. The fears which many of us expressed in Committee on the equivalent Scottish Bill—and I understand that they were also expressed in earlier stages of this Bill—were that local authorities, by virtue of the Clause, were given something akin to a statutory option on all land on which development value had accrued since 1948. They might have been able to acquire land at very advantageous rates indeed—land which had not been designated on the development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition. The procedure of the Clause, until it was altered in this respect in another place, gave certain powers in these cases.
Here, let me, in parenthesis, break a lance with the hon. Member for Widnes. Surely the provision is not open to anybody. It would not be open to any hon. Member drafting his election address, as the hon. Member suggested. It must be a prospective purchaser—someone who wants to buy the land.

Mr. MacColl: Why?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Because it says so in the Clause.

Mr. MacColl: No.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: It says that it is open to a prospective purchaser to apply in writing to the planning authority to ask if there is any proposal to acquire this land.

Mr. MacColl: If the hon. Gentleman is right, I apologise, and I am wrong, but as I understand it all words in the Clause after "on application made … in writing by" are to be deleted. In place of "a person who proposes to purchase" come the words "any person." As far as I can see, that is open to everybody, and any person with the slightest interest in the matter, or with curiosity, or with a desire to write an election address, is entitled to ask for this information.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I had not realised that those words were to be taken out. I was, however, speaking in parenthesis, and perhaps I may return to my original argument.
It seemed to some of us in the earlier proceedings on this and the other Bill that, having had the question asked them, local authorities would be tempted to hawk the land around various Government Departments saying, "Have you any use for this land? It is land which someone proposes to buy. We ourselves do not want it but, if you like, here is a chance of getting it on advantageous terms."
One makes this suggestion without any malice towards such bodies, who do splendid work, but, for example, a regional hospital board might be inclined, in over-insuring the acquisition of land for its future requirements, to earmark much more land than that to which it was entitled or that which it could properly use within the next five years. Anything which can be inserted into the Bill to safeguard the position is good; and it seems to me that here we have important safeguards. The local authority, when the question is asked, has to reply within 28 days, and if that reply is not made within 28 days it is assumed that no one wants to acquire the land compulsorily.
Secondly, it has to specify the public authority concerned. I think that is very important, for it can then be seen at once whether any particular authority is trying to grab more land than it can properly assimilate during the five-year period. The third safeguard is that the planning authority must specify what part of the land is required. That is a good thing. The hon. Member for Widnes asked why should not the public be entitled to inquire about the future intentions of the planning authority. I think that the answer is this—because Parliament, in the 1947 Act, placed definite and specific power of designation in the hands of public authorities who want to acquire land. It gave power to the public authorities which have powers of compulsory acquisition to designate the land they might require during the next 10, 15 or 20 years for public purposes.
It would be wrong if public authorities, having these wide and definite powers of designation, should be able to acquire land for other than quite urgent reasons, simply because of something in the Bill. I warmly welcome, therefore, the provisions which are now proposed to the House.

Mr. Gibson: I should like to take up one point made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), which seems rather important. I understand that the Bill as drafted provides that any person who wishes to become the purchaser of an interest in land can make inquiries and get information. But the alternative proposed in the Amendment would, as it seems to me—and here I agree with my hon. Friend—make it possible for people with no intention of purchasing an interest to make inquiries and get information which could be used for speculative purposes, as has been done in the past. I think that it would help if the Minister would say whether that is a correct interpretation of the alternative which has been proposed.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) completely missed the point, I think, in assuming that these words are not being changed in the Bill. These words are changed by the Amendment and the number of people who can make inquiries becomes unlimited instead of the inquiries being limited merely to people who propose to purchase an interest in the land.

Mr. Sparks: The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) was, I think, most unfair in his attitude towards local authorities. He said that local authorities would have the opportunity of acquiring land at a very cheap price, which, in fact, they will not.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: They will have the opportunity—and I said this—of acquiring land at a price which excludes any development value which has accrued since 1948.

Mr. Sparks: The hon. Gentleman has somewhat modified his statement which, when he sees it in HANSARD, will be found to read that the local authorities will be able to acquire large pieces of land at low values, which is not the case, because when they go to purchase they will have to pay the existing use value plus the claim plus one-seventh, and they will pay dearly for any land which they contemplate buying at a price which is above the market value.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The Part VI claim was assessed at values current in 1947, so the planning authority if it


acquires land under this Clause does so at a price which excludes any development value which has accrued since 1948.

Mr. Sparks: Yes, but it also pays a higher price for land which has depreciated in value considerably since 1947, and I am not quite sure whether one does not balance out the other. In any case, the owner loses very little because he receives the value of his land plus the interest on the outstanding balance of the claim from 1947 until such time as the local authority acquires it.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us exactly where the development plans come in on this question. He and his predecessor have been very busy approving development plans, and embodied in these plans, of course, is provision for compulsory purchase of certain areas. Therefore, I assume that that information is available to any prospective purchaser of land. He only needs to go to the local authority and he can see the map of the borough, see the development plans and precisely those pieces of land which the local authority hope to acquire within the period of five years.
The right hon. Gentleman must also have approved in principle the acquisition by the local authority of the land. So he, by giving approval to the proposal, more than doubly ensures that the land will be acquired by the local authority within five years. I cannot conceive of a local authority, in replying to an application of this kind, doing what the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns said just now—establishing a kind of veto on large pieces of land in their area, trying, as I think he said, to grab more land than they wanted. They cannot do that because they cannot buy land except with the consent of and by the leave of the Minister.
I cannot conceive any local authority replying to such an application within 28 days and saying, "We propose in addition to what is designated in the development plan to acquire other large pieces of land," without even consulting the right hon. Gentleman. Local authorities cannot do that because they do not know until they have consulted him whether or not he would approve of their acquisition of these many pieces of land which, we are told, they will say they require to purchase.
I think that to expect local authorities to decide whether or not they require for some special reason, apart from the reasons which prevailed when the designations were made for the development plan any other piece of land for any particular purpose and to give that decision within 28 days is far too short.
Obviously, if they need to acquire extra pieces of land for special purposes they would have to get the permission of the right hon. Gentleman first, otherwise they would be running a very great risk, and they would, naturally, need to consult him. I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman would be in a position to give them his decision by return of post. He would have to make inquiries into the validity of the representations made. I think that 28 days is too short a period in which to give any valid decision on this matter. So the tendency will be, if local authorities are bound by the 28 day limit, for them to say, "No we shall not require that land for five years." If they need to acquire it for a special reason, 28 days is not adequate to make the necessary inquiries.
7.30 p.m.
I think, too, that the right hon. Gentleman is making a great mistake in deleting the original words from Clause 34 and substituting:
any person with respect to particular land in the borough or district, to serve on the applicant, within a period of twenty-eight days from the date of the receipt of the application, a notice.
What is to prevent, not one person, but a number of persons serving notices? They have no need whatever to be prospective purchasers.
House and land agents are very interested to know what is to happen to the remaining pieces of land in local authority districts, especially in built-up areas. Valuable considerations are at stake. Naturally, they will want advance information of this kind. They, or anybody who has no intention of purchasing the land, can compel a local authority to make public to all and sundry what it proposes to do in regard to all the plots of land left undeveloped within its boundaries.
The number of applicants is not restricted to one. There might be a


dozen, 50 or more applicants covering every piece of undeveloped land in a local authority's area.

Mr. John Hay: What difference does that make?

Mr. Sparks: The difference is that if a local authority once gives a decision that it does not require the land for five years, the land cannot be touched except at the cost of excessive compensation to the person concerned. Since the land cannot be touched for five years, the local authority might find itself completely hamstrung to deal with any urgent problem, or even a problem of emergency, which involves the acquisition of land not already designated in the development plan.
The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, is leaving the door open far too wide. He should not expose the interests of a local authority and the community to this kind of method, which in the long run must jeopardise the public interest and hamstring local authorities seriously in carrying out much of the urgent work that they need to do from time to time.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I should like the Minister of Housing and Local Government to give this matter his serious consideration. He is the custodian of the rights of local authorities, which, put differently, merely means that he is the trustee on behalf of the public for the proper use of land in the public interest.
We all know that land is constantly being acquired, plotted out, planned and used for development for public purposes. It may well be that in pursuance of this end, other land may be required. But because a local authority might cast its eye on a certain part of the locality as being necessary for development for housing or another purpose is not to say that that is a matter that can be determined immediately or without inquiry, thought or careful consideration.
Obviously, that involves the calling in of experts. The local authority's architect will have to look into the matter. Engineers and others might need to be consulted to see whether the piece of land geographically and practically fits in with the plan that has been either already

conceived or put into operation, so that the piece of land can be added to it as an addendum or can be apportioned by way of the further development of the locality.
I ask the Minister, in that context, to consider whether it is not grotesque to expect that a local authority, which, in any case, can act only through committees—it is not one man acting—can be expected to arrive at a decision on a matter like this within 28 days. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember the amount of machinery that has to be put into operation once a local authority has to deal with a subject of this kind. Perhaps half a dozen different committees would have to apply their minds to the matter, and this is all in the public interests. If the Minister restricts the local authority to a short and inadequate period of this kind, the great probability is that the local authority and the public will be deprived of the benefit which they ought to have, or might have, from the use of the land if the local authority acquired it.
It would be just as wrong for a local authority to act hastily before it had had an opportunity of looking fully into the matter and of considering a piece of land in relation to its development. I ask the Minister to take a commonsense view. If he were to name a period of two months, which would be little enough, it could not prejudice the interests which he seeks to protect, whereas irretrievable damage can be done to the public by specifying too short a time for notice.

Mr. Sandys: In reply to the first point, regarding the alteration of the beginning of the Clause and the removal of the phrase
a person who proposes to purchase",
I have at first sight some sympathy with the point of view which hon. Members have adopted, but I do not think that the effect of the Amendment goes nearly as far as has been suggested. The only reason that this change has been made—it is dangerous sometimes to describe something as purely a drafting Amendment; this one has provoked quite a debate—was that it was not easy, even if possible, for an individual to prove that he had interest in purchasing a piece of land before he started negotiation.
Had we left the position as it was, the door would not have been much less wide


open than it is now. There is nothing to prevent a person from going to a local authority and saying that he is interested in buying a certain piece of land and asking for information under Clause 34. I do not believe it would be possible for the local authority to prove satisfactorily that the applicant was not proposing to buy the piece of land, and he would have had to be given the information.
Alternatively—this is really why we made the change—the local authority would have said, "Please prove to us that you propose to buy this land." The argument that would have followed and the difficulty of proving it would, or could, have resulted in dragging out the whole process for a very long time. Meanwhile, any hope of carrying through a successful negotiation for the purchase of the land would have passed and the sale, very likely, might have fallen through. Therefore we are seeking a phrase which does not present the difficulties of proving that he has an interest in acquiring land, and, consequently, avoids delay.
The next main point that was made was that it was undesirable to give this information. I do not agree with hon. Members on that point. In the first place, one very good reason is that the object of this Clause is to give to the prospective purchaser the confidence that if he buys the land with the idea of development—and land is changing hands at ordinary market values taking into account the potential development possibilities—he will have a reasonable assurance that the land he is going to acquire will not be taken over by a local authority involving him in heavy loss.
The purpose of giving this additional information is concerned with the fact that a small part of the land which he is proposing to buy may be included within some local authority scheme and may be compulsorily acquired within the next five years. For that reason he is deprived of the safeguard and the protection which is afforded by this Clause merely because of bad luck. The local authority is here asked to state not only what is to be the use of the land, but, also, in what part of the land, if it is not the whole of it, it is interested. There would be many cases where, owing to a piece of bad luck, the purchaser would, in fact, be deprived

of the protection which the House intended by this Clause to give him.
It has also been said that it is not a good thing to ask local authorities to make public their plans. I think it is a good thing that the plans should be made known. After all, it is public money that is involved and for public purposes, and it seems to me that there can be no possible objection on these grounds.

Mr. Sparks: These are not plans which are being made available.

Mr. Sandys: I do not see any reason for encouraging secretiveness. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) advanced a very strange argument in support of his objection when he said that all this information was already available. I was not going to take him up on that point.
The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said that by giving the information we would be encouraging speculation. I do not think that that is likely to be a consequence. In my view, the more local authorities' intentions are made public in regard to the use or acquisition of a particular piece of land within its area, the less scope there will be for speculation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly, because speculation can only thrive in conditions where there are unknown factors. People only speculate where something might happen. If the facts are known there is much less scope for speculation.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is the point I should like the Minister to deal with, and that is the case where the local authority will not have sufficient time to give a decision.

Mr. Sandys: I will deal with the hon. and learned Member's point, which is my last one, and that is the suggestion that the 28 days are too short.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Might be.

Mr. Sandys: The 28 days might be too short. I do not wish to shelter behind the rules of order, but I am bound to point out that the period of 28 days was laid down in the Bill as it stood and this particular Amendment does not, in fact, alter that position. Therefore, it is outside the scope of this debate.

7.45 p.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: We have had a very long debate and I do not wish to detain the House much longer, but there are two points I would mention that have not, in fact, been mentioned tonight. The first is in regard to the "contract" which appears in the Amendment to line 8. We indicated in Committee that we objected to the insertion of "contract" instead of "completion." It seemed to us that it enabled a coach and four to be driven through the whole provisions of the Bill and we maintain that view. The matter was considered fully in Committee, and I do not wish to canvass that point again.
In the last part of the Amendment there is the provision about 28 days for the local authority to serve a notice and if it does not do so within the 28 days then it will be deemed to have served it. The result of that will be that some other local authority, which wants to acquire property, will have to pay considerably more than would otherwise be the case.
The whole trouble in the Amendment and in the original Clause is that it is a very vague and sloppy provision contrasted with the provision of the Land Charges Act, where a duty is imposed and there are definite provisions as to what shall be done and definite remedies provided for everybody concerned. There is nothing of the sort here. The remark-

able feature of the provisions is that the local authority shall do this, that or the other thing without any remedies being provided for the other local authorities who may be affected by what is done, and, indeed, without a duty being cast upon the local authority concerned to maintain a proper register of contracts, and so on.

It is a most extraordinary, inept and quite inadequate provision even in the eyes of those who are in favour of the principle of it. We are not in favour of the principle. We do not want to detain the House by dividing on each one of these several Amendments, so we shall divide on the Lords Amendment in page 42, line 4, thereby expressing our general view about the position.

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 4, at end insert:
specifying in the notice—

(a) any such public authority by whom the council have been so notified; and
(b) any part of that land to which any such proposal of the council or other authority does not extend."

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 181: Noes, 167.

Division No. 236.]
AYES
[7.48 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Glover, D.


Allen, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Alport, C. J. M.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Gough, C. F. H.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cole, Norman
Gower, H. R.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grimond, J.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Banks, Col. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Deedes, W. F.
Hay, John


Beil, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. O. McA.
Heath, Edward


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Donner, Sir P. W.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Birch, Nigel
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bishop, F. P.
Drewe, Sir C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bowen, E. R.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence



Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fell, A.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Finlay, Graeme
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fisher, Nigel
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Iremonger, T. L.


Bullard, D. G.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Foster, John
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Burden, F. F. A.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Campbell, Sir David
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Kerr, H. W.


Carr, Robert
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Cary, Sir Robert
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lampton, Viscount




Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Osborne, C.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Page R. G.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Partridge, E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J C.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Longden, Gilbert
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Pitman, I. J.
Teeling, W.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Powell, J. Enoch
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Mackie, J. H (Galloway)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Redmayne, M.
Turton, R. H.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Harples, A. E.
Renton, D. L. M.
Vosper, D. F.


Maude, Angus
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wade, D. W.


Maudling, R.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Robson-Brown, W.
Wall, Major Patrick


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Roper, Sir Harold
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Mellor, Sir John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Moore, Sir Thomas
Russell, R. S.
Wellwood, W.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Neave, Airey
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Wills, G.


Oakshott, H. D.
Shepherd, William
Woollam, John Victor


O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)



Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orr. Capt. L. P. S.
Soames, Capt. C
Mr. Studholme and


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Speir, R M.
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith




NOES


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mitchison, G. R.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hamilton, W. W.
Monslow, W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hannan, W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W


Bartley, P.
Hardy, E. A.
Morley, R.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Benson, G.
Hayman, F. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mort, D. L.


Blenkinsop, A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Moyle, A.


Blyton, W. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Mulley, F. W.


Boardman, H.
Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Houghton, Douglas
Oldfield, W. H.


Bowden, H. W.
Hoy, J. H.
Oliver, G. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oswald, T.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Padley W. E.


Burke, W. A
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Callaghan, L. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, A. M. F


Champion, A. J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pannell, Charles


Chapman, W. D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Parker, J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Parkin, B. T.


Clunie, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Paton, J.


Coldrick, W.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pearson, A.


Collick, J. H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Peart, T. F.


Collins, V. J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Popplewell, E.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Keenan, W.
Probert, A. R.


Daines, P.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, Dr. H. M
Rankin, John


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lawson, G. M.
Reeves, J.


Deer, G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Delargy, H. J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dodds, N. N.
Lindgren, G. S.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.
Ross, William


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, J. E.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Fienburgh, W.
McInnes, J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Follick, M.
McLeavy, F.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Skeffington, A. M.


Gibson, C. W.
Manuel, A. C.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mason, Roy
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mellish, R. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Messer, Sir F
Sparks, J. A.







Steele, T.
Viant, S. P.
Willey, F. T.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Warbey, W. N.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Sylvester, G. O.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
West, D. G.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wheeldon, W. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Yates, V. F.


Thomson George (Dundee, E.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)



Thornton, E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Turner-Samuels, M.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wallace.


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Wilkins, W. A.



Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 42, line 8, leave out from "propose" to "is" in line 18 and insert:
and have not been notified of any proposal of another authority, to acquire within the next five years any interest in any land specified in the notice (in this subsection referred to as 'the specified land'), being the whole or part of the land to which the application related; and
(b) the person to whom the notice was given has within three months of the service of the notice completed, or entered into a bona fide contract for, the purchase of an interest in the specified land or any part thereof and given notice of the completion or, as the case may be, of the making of the contract to the said council; and
(c) that interest, or that interest in so far as it subsists in any part of that land,".—[Special Entry.]

In line 30, leave out "time" and insert "date of service."

Leave out lines 32 to 44 and insert:
Provided that—

(i) if at the date of the publication or service of the first notice in connection with the acquisition such as is referred to in paragraph (c) of this subsection, the purchase mentioned in paragraph (b) thereof has not been completed, this subsection shall not have effect unless the contract mentioned in the said paragraph (b) remains in force at that date;
(ii) this subsection shall not have effect in relation to a purchase by a company from an associated company within the meaning of section forty-seven of this Act.

(3) If, in the case of an application under subsection (1) of this section, at the expiration of the period mentioned in that subsection the council have not served the notice required thereby, then, for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section, the council shall be deemed to have duly served on the applicant at the expiration of the said period such a notice as is mentioned in the paragraph (a) of the said subsection (2) with respect to the whole of the land to which the application related.

(4) Without prejudice to the duty imposed by subsection (1) of this section on a council to whom an application under that subsection has been made, the council may require the applicant to pay to them a fee of five shillings.

(5) Section thirty-two of this Act shall not apply for the purpose of assessing any compensation to the assessment of which subsection (2) of this section applies:

Provided that if the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest would, apart from this proviso, be less than it would have been if this section had not been enacted, the said subsection (2) shall not apply in the case of that acquisition.

New Clause "A."—(ADDITIONAL PAY MENTS IN CASES WHERE NO CLAIM HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.)

Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 20, at end insert new Clause "A."
(1) If, in the case of a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, the appropriate authority is satisfied that the relevant land or some part thereof does not constitute or form part of the claim area of any established' claim, but that a claim or claims in respect of one or more interests in that land, or, as the case may be, in that part thereof, would have been established if made, there shall be issued by or on behalf of the Treasury a certificate specifying—

(a) whether or not, in the opinion of the person signing the certificate, section thirty-two of this Act would have applied to the compulsory acquisition if the claim or claims aforesaid had been established; and
(b) if so, what in that person's opinion, after giving the person entitled to the relevant interest an opportunity to present his case, would have been the amount of the additional compensation calculated by reference to the unexpended balance of established development value of that land or that part thereof which would have been payable under that section in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest.
(2) Where an amount has been specified as aforesaid, that amount shall be added to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section:
Provided that if, after taking into account all the circumstances, the appropriate authority is of opinion that it is not just and reasonable that the whole of that amount should be so added or, as the case may be, that any amount should be so added, the said authority may direct that such lesser amount as he may specify shall be so added or, as the case may be, that no addition to the compensation aforesaid shall be made.
(3) In this section, the expression "the appropriate authority" means—
(a) where the compulsory acquisition of the relevant interest by the acquiring authority requires authorisation by a single other authority, that other authority; or


(b) where the acquiring authority is a government department and the compulsory acquisition does not require the authorisation of any other authority, the acquiring authority; or
(c) in any other case, the Treasury or such other authority as the Treasury may in any case or class of cases, direct.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Bill provides that when land is acquired by a public authority, compensation shall be calculated on the basis of its existing use value plus the unexpended balance of any development claim established under the 1947 Act. The purpose of this new Clause is to deal with cases where the owner of the land which is being acquired omitted for one reason or another to put in a claim for development value under the 1947 Act.
In such cases, if his land is compulsorily acquired, the owner would be paid only its existing use value, because there is no claim and, therefore, no unexpended balance of its development value. As a result, he may very well suffer extremely heavy loss. As the House knows, the hardship of this was brought home to the country in a most poignant fashion by the tragic case of Mr. Pilgrim, who was driven by his misfortune and the despair which it caused, to take his own life.
8.0 p.m.
The purpose of the proposed new Clause is, in these circumstances, to put the owner of land in respect of which no development claim has been made as far as practicable in the same position as if a claim had been made. I say "as far as practicable" because we must recognise that it will not necessarily be possible years afterwards.
This procedure is not a "one time" affair. The Clause may be applied many years hence and it will not necessarily be possible years afterwards to recreate the position exactly as it would have been if the claim had been made under the 1947 Act, which would have been in 1948 or early in 1949.
The factors governing the development value as it was in 1947—because that is what we have to try to assess—become more and more difficult to ascertain as time goes by. Subject to these difficulties and limitations, we have endeavoured

to give to the owner the benefits to which he would have been entitled if a claim for development value had been made.
I should like to say a few words about the procedure to be followed under the new Clause. Perhaps I should explain that the appropriate authority—which is normally the confirming Minister—and the Treasury, both of whom have a part to play in this process, will normally act on the advice of the district valuer, whose impartiality is, I think, above challenge. If the new Clause is adopted, district valuers will be instructed, in all cases where there is no development claim, to advise, after consultation with the owner, whether, if such a claim had been made, it is likely that it would have been successful.
If so, they are to assess to the best of their ability what was the remaining unexpended development value of such a claim at the time of the compulsory acquisition. The owner would normally be paid—and I want to remove any doubts about this—the whole of the sum assessed in this way by the district valuer. It was, however, thought right to include a proviso at the end of subsection (2) of the new Clause to enable all or part of this additional compensation to be withheld in cases where its payment obviously would not be justified.
For example, there are no doubt cases where the owner of the land bought it at no more than its existing use value, quite possibly for the very reason that no development claim had been put in in respect of that land. In such a case the owner has not suffered any disadvantage and there would be no justification for paying him additional compensation.
I hope that, with this explanation, the House will be willing to agree to the new Clause which meets a very real need. It was unhappily overlooked, or rather I should say that it was felt difficult to introduce it at the time of the original drafting of the Bill, but the necessity of it has been brought home to us by the circumstances to which I have referred.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I do not want to take up an undue amount of time on the new Clause, because we accept it in principle. All of us have been shocked by the tragic ease of Mr. Pilgrim, and none of us would wish to oppose the


Clause. I wish, however, to make one or two comments on the method by which the principle has been carried out and how it fits into the general scheme of the Bill.
Before I came to the method, I should like to ask one question. The new Clause deals with compulsory purchase, and is limited to compulsory purchase only. In the case of compulsory purchase, the compulsory purchase price is paid by the local authority and therefore any extra payment made as a result of the Clause will be payment made by the local authority and not by the Treasury.
It is obvious that circumstances similar to those in the tragic case of Mr. Pilgrim might occur not when compulsory purchase is involved but when compensation is involved. I should like to ask, therefore, whether similar provision is being made where compensation would be payable—and therefore payable by the Treasury—and not merely in cases of compulsory purchase.
On the subject of discretions, as provided in the new Clause, I am sure that the Solicitor-General will agree with me that it is most objectionable to have wide powers of unfettered discretion given to authorities, however reputable and however much above suspicion. It is for the Legislature to lay down at least the principles upon which the discretion should be exercised. Here we have discretion piled upon discretion, without any indication being laid down as to how it should be exercised.
In the first place, the appropriate authority must be satisfied that the land does not constitute or form part of the claim area of any established claim. That should be a matter of fact comparatively easy to ascertain. I am not particularly worried about that provision, except that I should like to know what the position is if any claim has been established at all in respect of that land, though not necessarily by the predecessor in title of the person with whom we are concerned. Does that mean that the person with whom we are concerned cannot make a claim, or that there is no increase in the claim in those circumstances? What precisely happens?
Coming to the discretions of a greater scope with which I am more particularly concerned, the first is the discretion on

the part of the Treasury. The Treasury must issue a certificate specifying, first of all,
whether or not, in the opinion of the person signing the certificate, section thirty-two of this Act would have applied to the compulsory acquisition…
I do not know how that discretion will be exercised.
Apparently it will be exercised by some clerk in the Treasury who comes to the conclusion, I do not know how, that Clause 32 would apply, without any provision being made for any consideration under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, being put before a Treasury official, or for any appeal from a Treasury official to any land tribunal or any body of that kind. It is an utterly unfettered and unaccountable discretion vested in the Treasury.
There is an additional discretion. If the official comes to the conclusion that Clause 32 would have applied, he has to say what in his opinion would have been the amount of additional compensation. Apparently that has Ito be done by a district valuer, though Clause 32 of the Bill does not say so, and it is to be done without any kind of provision for any considerations on the part of the applicant being put before the district valuer or Treasury official who is dealing with the subject. Nor is there any provision for any appeal from the Treasury official to a land tribunal or any body of that kind.
I pass on to another person who has a discretion in addition to the discretions with which I have dealt—which makes three kinds of discretions. The appropriate authority can write down the amount of compensation—although, apparently, it is not allowed to write up the amount of compensation—if it is of the opinion that it is not just and reasonable that the whole of the amount should be paid, to some lesser amount which should be paid.
What is the mystery behind all this? The appropriate authority may be the Treasury, a Government Department, or someone else—one of the series of people indicated in subsection (3). How is this authority to exercise discretion? What is to be the test? Is it to be accidental failure to put in the application? If that is the test it could have been stated perfectly clearly in the new Clause. Is the test to be cases where the purchaser who


otherwise would make the application has bought at the existing use value? If that is the case it is perfectly right and proper, as the Minister indicated, but there is no indication of making that a binding provision in the Clause.
In another place it has been suggested that big concerns shall not make a claim but, apparently, some lesser concerns will be entitled to make a claim. Who is to distinguish between a big and a lesser concern? On what principle is that to be done? Are we to have a means test applied to the applications to be made under this Clause? It really is the most loose, unacceptable kind of Clause, giving wide power to civil servants to make payments out of public funds without any kind of principle being laid down in the Bill to provide for those payments.
In my constituency there is a case in which a small man, by bad luck on his part, or on the part of his agent—I am not sure which—has not put in a claim. What is to happen in that case? If it is negligence on his part, is he entitled to make a claim and to receive payment? If it is negligence on the part of his agent is he entitled to make a claim? How is the line to be drawn? What are the principles to be embodied in the exercise of discretion?
All kinds of difficult questions and borderline cases will arise. Hon. Members will be pestered by innumerable persons all over the country to bring pressure to bear on the Minister to make payments in these cases. How are we to decide them? There must be some principles of action for dealing with these cases. Those principles ought not to be left to the uncontrolled discretion of an official, but laid down in accordance with well-recognised principles of which this House approves.
8.15 p.m.
The great difficulty of this Bill concerns the provision of money for compensation. That is the root difficulty in the Bill. In the 1947 Act we tried to meet that point by providing betterment and to equate in accordance with the Uthwatt principles. It has been decided to overrule that and here there is no automatic fund provided for dealing with compensation cases.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. and learned Member seems to be widening his argument beyond the scope of the Amendment.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am merely illustrating how this provision is part of the difficulty which is fundamental to this Bill. This provision is nightly trying to provide compensation but is in the difficulty that there is no fund available for it and no means, except by drawing on general Treasury account or through payment by a local authority. That is one of the main difficulties of the Bill.

Mr. Powell: Will the hon. and learned Member say where the compensation in cases of that sort, where no claim has been made under the 1947 Act, would have come from under the 1947 Act?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Obviously they would not have been met under the two-tier system. The difficulty we are up against is the two-price system.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member seems to be carrying the argument beyond the Amendment.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I respectfully agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; I was merely answering the hon. Member.
That is the difficulty which is fundamental to this Bill—the difficulty upon which this Clause impinges—that of providing compensation. From time to time, as in this Clause, we shall nibble into the provisions upon which the present Minister's predecessor took his stand—the 1947 standard of payments. Gradually the whole of those provisions will be eroded and collapse. This is the first encroachment. I am not advising my hon. Friends to vote against this new Clause. It is right and just that this new Clause should be passed, but it shows the fundamental difficulty, weakness and defect, which lies at the foundation of the whole superstructure upon which the Bill is built.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I wish to ascertain from my right hon. Friend whether certain claims concerning my constituency, which I have been discussing with his Department, and which I have raised in the House, can be met under this Clause. These claims were made under Section 59 of the 1947 Act and were subsequently found to have been made under the wrong Section when regulations were made by the Minister under that Section. It was then too late for the claims to be made under


Section 58. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could say whether such claims could be reopened under this Clause, and whether he has any hope for my unfortunate constituents, one of whom has become seriously ill because of worry over this difficulty.

Lieut.-Colonel J. C. Lockwood: Although I do not propose to detain the House for more than a minute, think I have good reason for intervening because this Clause is of particular importance to my constituents. Mr. Pilgrim lived, and, unfortunately, died, in Romford. It is a great pity that this Clause was not inserted in the Bill before it went to another place. I did not quite gather what the explanation was of why that was not done. Whatever the explanation, I think the Clause should have been inserted.
I feel that my constituents would ask me to support this Clause. I think some of the criticisms levelled against it are perfectly justified; it is a loose Clause. I am not at all certain that it will be easy to operate. It is some attempt, although belated, to obviate the recurrence of a tragedy similar to that in the case of Mr. Pilgrim.
There are two questions which I wish to ask, and which are additional to the question which, I think, was properly asked by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). Paragraph (b) of the new Clause A says that a Treasury certificate will be given
… after giving the person entitled to the relevant interest an opportunity to present his case …
I should like to know what form that opportunity will take. Will it be a statement in writing or a personal interview? Or is the person entitled to go before a tribunal? I do not know, but I think that such a person should have a proper opportunity to state his case, because if he has not, then it would appear to me that the whole idea of the Bill will fall.
The second and more important point is the question of an appeal. Is there an appeal under this new Clause? I do not think that there is. If there is, I have not been able to discover that fact, and if there is not, I think that there should be. I hope that the Minister will say that there is. I agree that far too much power

is given under this Clause to people who, although they may act in good faith, should not have to take that responsibility. It seems to me that a person aggrieved should have the right of appeal. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously what I am saying and will not give an evasive answer. I hope he will tell us whether there is an appeal, and, if not, whether, in his opinion, an appeal should be allowed.
I think that in the long run this Clause will do something to prevent a repetition of the tragedy we all deplore and I am sure, therefore, that in the event of a Division my constituents would wish me to support it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I concede at once that this Clause gives us something, but I think it is a good intention badly carried out. What I cannot fathom about it—and I should like the Minister to consider this—is that this is a concession which is now being made on the same basis as if a claim had been established; on the assumption that the matter was not overlooked and that all that had been done was done by the person in question to establish the claim. Why, therefore, should the procedure and the machinery applying to this case be different from that for the normal case?
That must be answered by the Minister. I cannot see why that should be so, once we concede that, had a claim been made, it could have been established. We have removed the defect altogether, and we come back to exactly the same position as if a claim had been made. If it had been made in the first place, a certain procedure would have been applied. But, here, the Minister is seeking to apply entirely different machinery—or rather no machinery at all—and that is something which I cannot appreciate.
In this Clause there is no code of practice at all on a very important matter which is likely to be applied over a large field and affect a variety of property of character and value. The decision as to the appraisement of compensation in these circumstances is to be left merely to the whims of different local authorities——

Mr. Hay: No.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Of course it is. It is no use saying——

Dr. Morgan: The lawyers will come in all right.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: —that it is not. That is displaying in words the same confusion as we have here in print.
The fact is that it is being left to the whims of different local authorities. What does that mean? Exactly the same claims, with the same circumstances, the same force of right, the same reason why a certain amount should be given, are in danger of meeting different conclusions, because it is being left to the whims of different local authorities. As I said, there is to be no code of practice, which is absolutely intolerable. That would be intolerable in private affairs, but in public affairs it becomes absolutely ridiculous. I ask the Minister to consider this and to try to devise—if not now at a later stage—a method of approximating the practice throughout the country.
As I understand, there is to be no sort of tribunal at all. It will not come under the cognisance of the Lands Tribunal or any authoritative person. It may be left to a petty clerical functionary who merely puts his signature on paper on the dotted line and the matter is disposed of—so is the poor applicant so far as his compensation is concerned.
This will not do. I agree that here something is being done. I agree that the tragic circumstances surrounding the Pilgrim case must be avoided in future. But while this may avoid a major tragedy it leaves open the door for minor tragedies. It does not provide adequately or securely for procedure provisions which should be made in a case of this kind. Therefore, I ask the Minister to examine this matter again and devise better means for the future.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I wish to welcome the initiative and intention of the Government in adding this new Clause which, I suppose, will always be known as the "Pilgrim Clause." Its object is to remove the legalised injustice so poignantly brought to the notice of the public by the late Mr. Pilgrim, but it applies to many other cases and, as the Minister knows, I have had such cases in my own constituency, which I have brought to his notice.
The situation is that a person finds himself the victim of a compulsory purchase order, and then learns that he is

to be paid for his land only a fraction of the price to which he considers he is entitled. He then learns that, if he had established a claim under the 1947 Act or Clause 32 of this Bill, he would have got the difference. He is in exactly the position of a new boy at school who is unaware of the fact that, on the school notice board, it was stated he should attend at a ridiculous time at a ridiculous place; and he does not go and he is beaten.
One does not complain about that sort of thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may complain, but they should realise that that sort of trivial thing does not matter very much. In any case, there is an element of justice in it because the notice board is large and is there to be looked at.
But Clause 32 of the Bill is not large and there are many people who do not look at it and it is not their business to look at it. I think it would be possible to suspend the Constitution if it were done in small enough print, or in sufficiently obscure language. In fact, that is the sort of thing that has been drone in the 1947 Act, and many people have been caught out and it is a shame that they were caught out.
8.30 p.m.
One is not so concerned to protect those with larger interests, because they are the people who can pay lawyers to watch their interests. But there have been many people of small education and humble position and small means, unable to provide for their interests to be watched, and they have been caught out. I think the Government are earning their gratitude, because they are now making some provision to allow part of the difference due to them to be paid. It shows that at least the Government are prepared to sacrifice legalistic minutae in favour of the broader principles of justice. If the Government had not been so prepared, a lot of people would quite rightly have had an enduring grievance, not only against the Government for failing to do that but against this House for failing to see that this sort of thing was not tolerated.

Mr. Skeffington: Reference has been made by the Minister and several subsequent speakers to the unfortunate case which, we understand, gave rise to


the introduction of this new Clause. But I would suggest there was nothing inherently wrong with the machinery of the 1947 Act if it had been operated. What surely would have been the way to deal with the situation—and I hope I get the support of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger)—would have been to see an early introduction of Section 7 of Part I of the Legal Aid and Advice Act. People purchasing land need the advice of skilled professional people who know how to make researches and inquiries and can safeguard the interests of their clients.

Mr. Iremonger: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. In my brief experience in this House, it has been my experience that nothing is more required.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This seems to be carrying the discussion well beyond the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. Skeffington: I fully agree and I will not pursue the point further, except to say that in many ways this is a kind of steamhammer Clause to crack a small, though very important, nut. I do not want anyone to imagine I am unsympathetic about this kind of injustice, but the remedy I have suggested would, I think, be more appropriate.
What is now to be the position is that very considerable discretions are to be given to the Minister and people in the Treasury with practically no guidance at all as to how they are to be administered. It is true that in various places in the principal Act discretion has been left to the Minister, but—so far as my memory serves me—there has nearly always been some guidance to the Minister as to how he should exercise his powers. Here, there is no guidance whatsoever.
It is another case of rather the same character as that of a Clause with which we dealt earlier, where the people who make the most noise and bring pressure on the Minister through Members of Parliament, or get picture newspapers to take up their case are the sort of people who would get compensation for late claims. But people who do not like to do that, or cannot do it, will endure just the same sort of injustice as was suffered by the unfortunate victim to whom reference has been made.
If the Government says that this is the procedure now to be adopted, why on earth is it only to take place in cases arising after the passage of the Bill? If the injustice is there, and if this is the method to be used, why not go back to the 1947 Act?
In the Pilgrim case the Minister was able, I understand, by using Section 228 of the Local Government Act, to validate an illegal payment by the local authority. I am wondering whether, if we bring pressure to bear over individual cases, the Minister would use that power again. It seems undesirable to make valid illegal payments by local authorities, that hope alternatively that the Minister will go further and agree to look at all cases that have arisen since the 1947 Act, and bring them within the Clause.

Mr. Hay: The reason for the appearance of this new Clause has been touched upon by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). There is a fundamental defect in the Bill, and the new Clause will do very little to improve it. Under the Bill the Government have refused all along to allow any reopening of the claims which either were made or could have been made, if people had been sufficiently alert, at the time of the 1947 Act.
It is important that we should have an answer from the Minister on this point: what exactly are the reasons why the procedure laid down in the new Clause cannot be operated retrospectively? I can see no reason why a person who happened not to have made a claim, whether for good or bad reasons, in the past, should receive no compensation comparable to that provided in this Clause if his land has been compulsorily acquired between 1948 and the coming into force of the new Act—and that was the position in the Pilgrim case—while he will receive compensation if, after the Bill becomes an Act, his land is compulsorily acquired in future.
That is the fundamental defect of the new Clause, that it does not go far enough. It is a blemish upon the Clause, although I appreciate that the Government have done their best to meet the point, which has cropped up during the passage of the Bill. However, the Government had warning that this sort of thing might arise. My hon. Friend the


Member for North Angus (Mr. ThorntonKemsley) and I and other hon. Members drew attention to the problem on Second Reading, and we were then told that the 1947 valuation was the Ark of the Covenant and that it could under no circumstances be disturbed.
Yet, what are we doing in the Clause? We are, in effect, disturbing the 1947 valuation because we are saying that the district valuer, some years from now, will, as the Minister has said, have to decide whether a claim could have been made in 1947 when, in fact, it was not, and, if it had been made, what would have been the amount of development value. If the Clause is still on the Statute Book five or 10 years from now it will be an unreal performance for the district valuer to try to calculate 1947 development values. By analogy, the rating and valuation officers who are at the moment trying hard to determine rateable values by reference to 1939 rents are having enough difficulty. What will be the position in future under the Clause?
I also want to press from this side of the House a point already made to the Minister that, if possible, some kind of appeal machinery should be adopted. We cannot now do it in this Clause because no notice to amend it has been given. However, it is obvious to all hon. Members that an amending Measure will be needed before very long, once the new Act is on the Statute Book. I urge that when the amending legislation is considered, however much it may disturb them now, the Minister and the Ministry should think about some kind of appeal procedure.
As the Clause stands at the moment, the district valuer will apparently decide the past value which is to be used for the purpose of assessing compensation. He will pass that to the Treasury. The person whose land is to be acquired, the man who stands to suffer the loss, has no opportunity whatever of contesting the development value which the district valuer may place upon it.
It has rightly been said that all district valuers are men of probity, experience and knowledge, but anyone who has experience of valuing property knows that each of a series of valuers will give an entirely different, although entirely honest, view of what may be the value of a piece

of land for a given purpose. Consequently, I suggest that, if possible, in amending legislation in the future there should be included some appeal procedure.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Instead of having appeal procedure, would it not be better to treat the case as an established claim and apply the normal procedure which would be applied to an ordinary case by this Measure?

Mr. Hay: That is the point I was dealing with a few moments ago.
I have always felt that the great mistake of the Bill is that it does not give those people who ought to have made a claim but did not do so another opportunity of making one. If that had been the case, Mr. Pilgrim would probably have made a claim, and would not have taken the very drastic and unhappy step which he did take, which seems to me, since sometimes good can come out of wrong and evil, to have focused the attention of the Government and the public on this particular point.
I therefore feel that, though we cannot object to the Government's second thoughts on the matter, we ought to urge that this point should be kept under continuous review in the Ministry, and that, when a suitable opportunity occurs, this whole question should be re-examined and an appeal procedure introduced.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: It is extremely bad manners to intervene in a debate on a Bill of this sort when one has not been a Member of the Committee which considered it. I apologise for doing so, but I never expected to find myself so much in agreement with the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). I think that on all sides of the House we are in sympathy with the general purpose of this new Clause, and for that reason we are not going to divide against it.
I agree with every comment made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester. North-East (Sir L. UngoedThomas) on the form of the Clause and on the effect which that form will have. We have here discretion after discretion, unguided and, I should have thought, completely unnecessary, at any rate as regards the first two of the discretions which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned. I should have thought that these were matters that could have been stated


and proved in the ordinary way, without being left to the opinion of so-and-so.
As drafted, this is a thoroughly sloppy Clause. Of course, it should have been brought in much earlier, but it was brought in at the last moment, and any discussion about its form or possible amendment is, at this stage of the Bill—and, I may add, at this stage of the Parliamentary Session—obviously academic.
Therefore, I wish only to ask the Minister two questions. First of all, it seems to me that, in the mess which this Clause is in, some circular or directions will be necessary at some stage—probably several circulars and several directions. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication whether he will lay down in his circular or directions some sort of principle that appears to have been omitted from the Clause itself, and should, at any rate, be given temporary effect?
Secondly, it has been pointed out, and I entirely agree with the comment, that it is really quite unfair to make the possibility of claims under this Clause depend upon the date of the notice to treat. There is no logical distinction of right or justice between a claim which might have been made had the notice to treat been given previously and one relating to a notice to treat given after this new Clause comes into effect. There could be no reasonable ground for that.
There was the sad case of Mr. Pilgrim, who committed suicide. His widow actually received a payment from the local authority concerned, and I should like to ask the Minister, who is also concerned generally with local authorities and their affairs, another question. Is he prepared, if he does issue the circular which I have suggested, to give some directions to local authorities as to proper cases for such payments? After all, if that payment was made in the case of Mr. Pilgrim, it is not required that every claimant who had a notice to treat before this Clause comes into operation should commit suicide in order to justify his claim.
There must be cases in which it would be just as right for the local authority to make a compensatory payment as was done in the Pilgrim case, and I should like to know whether any directions are to be given to the local authorities or any suggestions made to them regarding

such payments. In parenthesis, I should like to know under what authority the payment was made in the Pilgrim case, in order that we may know that what was duly done in that case can be duly done in others.
This is the log-rolling season, and logs may be rolled justly or unjustly. My only excuse for taking up the time of the House is, frankly, that I may have a constituency log to roll.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: By leave of the House, I will reply to some of the points. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said it was bad manners to take part in this kind of debate if one had not been in the Committee. I would be very happy to prove my good manners by refraining to take part in the debate today.
A number of points have been raised by hon. Members, mainly concerned with the discretion given to the Executive, and concentrating in the main on the question whether or not there was a right of appeal. It has been said that this case ought to be dealt with in the same way as other cases where there has been a claim. Coming new to this matter, and being much newer than most hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, I can say that that was my first approach when I was faced with this problem only a few weeks ago. It seemed simple, straightforward and obvious that it should be handled in that way, but the more I looked into the matter and saw the consequences, difficulties and complications, the less easy and obvious it seemed that it could be handled in that way.
These are not cases on all fours with cases where a claim was put in in 1948. Time has elapsed, and much more time will elapse before some of these cases will be dealt with. This process will not take place immediately after the passage of the Bill. There will not be a cleaning-up process to deal with outstanding cases where no claim was put in. Over the years, land will be compulsorily acquired, and in a proportion of those cases it will be found that no claim was put in for development value. In some of the cases it will be found that, if a claim had been put in, very likely it would have been successful. In other words, through the omission to put in a claim the owner of the land is suffering a loss.
These cases may be spread over a long period of years, and as the years pass by it will he more and more difficult to arrive at a precise conclusion what the development value claim would have been if one had been made in 1948. The questions which have to be answered are straightforward but are not always easy of answer.
I do not think that this is a case where any useful purpose would be served by sending out a circular to district valuers advising them how to arrive at the answers to these questions, though I am quite prepared to consider the matter if experience shows that to be necessary. As I say, the questions are quite straightforward. The difficulty——

Mr. Iremonger: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the point of the retrospective——

Mr. Sandys: I have not yet reached the retrospective one. I was proposing to deal with it at greater length. What I am dealing with is the question of the discretion of the Executive and the desirability of providing a right of appeal to a land tribunal or to some other form of arbitration.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked whether we intended to send out a circular. I do not quite see what one would put in a circular, because the question is, first, does Clause 32 apply? That was a point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. That is probably the easiest of the questions to decide. It is a question of fact. Though, of course, there can be differences of opinion about facts, I do not believe that, in practice, there will be much difficulty in deciding whether Clause 32 does apply.
The other questions will be more difficult to answer. For instance, there is the question of whether, if a claim had been made in 1948, it would have been successful, and, if it had been successful, what would have been the amount of the development value that would have been established. These are points which, one may say, could be put to a tribunal, and on which there could be some process of appeal. But we have not only to decide whether the claim would have been successful, but also how much it would have been, and, in addition, what would be the unexpended balance of that claim

at some future date when the land came to be acquired?
I do not believe that this is a fair proposition to put to a tribunal. This is not a question of law, but of opinion. It seems to me that we are doing our best to fog back to 1948. That is a very difficult thing and one which does not lend itself to precise legal definition. It is an extremely difficult one to be decided by the courts of law. I am sure that if it were to be referred to the courts the processes would be absolutely interminable. Arguments could be advanced and evidence could be produced which could be questioned in every sort of way.
I believe that what we have to do is to make the best of a difficult task. We have to see whether we can provide, if not a perfect solution, at any rate something which will ensure reasonable justice being done. When we know that the sympathy of the country and of Parliament is behind the policy of this Clause, I think the House may be sure that where there is error it will tend to be on the side of the person who might be suffering loss and not on the side of the Exchequer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) emphasised this point when he said that the whole thing will be a rather unreal procedure. It will be an unreal procedure, but we are trying to put something right which has resulted from an omission several years ago, and, as time goes on, the span of years will be greater. It will be a somewhat unreal procedure, but I believe that, by and large, we shall achieve a measure of rough justice in this whole process. In the circumstances, that is probably the best that we can do.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned with great force the two discretions under (a) and (d), but it seems to me that the latest and most important one, and that on which a circular is most needed, is in the proviso to subsection (2), which at present is absolutely at large.

Mr. Sandys: There is a point which I should have made. This is a different matter, but there will probably have to be a circular on it. I wish it to be made absolutely clear to district valuers that they are to consult the owner concerned from the very outset, before they begin to apply themselves to these problems.


There may be some misunderstanding because the subsection says:
after giving the person entitled to the relevant interest an opportunity to present his case.
I want to make it clear that throughout all these different processes the owner of the land shall be brought into consultation and given an opportunity to state his case and to argue why he does not agree with what the district valuer is to propose. Although it may be said that that is not a legal right of appeal, I believe that in practice it will work out fairly well and that the owner will probably have a better opportunity than by taking his case to a court of law, which is always an expensive business and something which he might feel that he could not afford.
Under the Clause, he will have a sympathetic hearing and, as we shall emphasise to the district valuers, every opportunity to be helped. I want to make it clear that in the whole of this process it is not left to the owner of the land to make a case. Wherever there is no claim forming part of the compensation money payable, it will automatically be the duty of the district valuer to look into the matter and to see whether there should not have been a claim, in which case the whole procedure of the Clause will come into operation.

Mr. Sparks: Presumably the Minister is limiting what he said to acquisition by local authorties, because there will be many cases in which no claim has been submitted and the land will never come into the possession of the local authority, so that the question will not arise. Presumably he is referring only to those cases in which local authorities take steps to acquire land upon which there is no established claim.

Mr. Sandys: Not only local authorities, but also public authorities or the Government. That is the only case where the question could arise, and it is covered by this procedure.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I want to follow the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). We appreciate what the Minister said, and welcome it, but it is not sufficient for us to have an answer on the valuation point. What is

extremely important is the principle upon which the words "just and reasonable" are to be administered.

Mr. Sandys: That is a very important point and I will deal with it straight away. I want to make it clear, as I thought I had earlier, that it is proposed to withhold payment only in cases in which loss has not been suffered as a result of the failure to make a claim.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Can my right hon. Friend clear up this point? He is now saying something which I understand is quite contrary to what was said in another place by the Lord Chancellor. He gave two examples. The first was the man who had bought land at its existing use value and, therefore, should not be compensated for more than at its existing use value; and the other was that of the large and powerful financial institution. Once we apply a means test of that kind, we open up all sorts of possibilities, and I should like the Minister to apply himself to that question. If it is not a question of hardship, are these large financial institutions to come into it?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think it would be proper for me to refer to what goes on in another place. I think that I have made clear what is the Government's policy in regard to the making of these payments. A great deal of discussion has taken place on this problem. We know that in our House different things are said and arguments are listened to, but what I have said is a considered statement of policy in reply to the question put to me by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
On the question of Exchequer grants, the position is perfectly simple. The extra cost of purchase which will result from the acceptance of these hypothetical claims will be dealt with in exactly the same way as the element in the cost of purchase which results from the unexpended balance of the development value in the case of other purchases of land where a claim was put in, and they will rank for Exchequer grants in exactly the same way. By this Clause we are trying to prevent further hardship and injustice accruing as a result of people having, for one reason or another, overlooked putting in a claim for development value.
It has been argued in this debate that this Clause should have been made to operate retrospectively. We should like that to be possible. It is a good thing to prevent further hardship and injustice, and, naturally, we should all like to put right hardships and injustices which have already been caused. The House is very familiar with amending legislation of all kinds and reforms of all kinds, and it is rarely possible effectively to go right back and put right everything that was wrong. What one tries to do is to prevent that wrong being done again, and, in so far as it is practicable, to deal with some cases which are concerned with the immediate present or the very recent past.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: This is a very vital matter. The Minister has himself indicated that the only thing which will be considered is the case where it is obvious from the circumstances that it would have been an established case if the applicant had been alert enough to have asserted his rights. Why, in that case, and on that assumption, should it not be right to apply the normal procedure——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is now repeating the argument which he has already used in his speech.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I want the Minister to deal with that.

Mr. Sandys: We have the strongest sympathy with the feelings which have prompted this proposal and we have examined the possibility exhaustively; but we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it would not be wise to pass legislation which would have the effect of invalidating contracts and agreements which have been entered into left and right and casting doubts upon the ownership of land which has already been acquired by local authorities and upon which in many cases they are already building.
Generally, it is a bad principle to pass legislation, not only in this field but over the whole commercial field, which casts doubt upon the validity of contracts and agreements made in the past. That is one of the fundamental bases upon which so much in our economic and commercial life rests. We feel that we should not

be doing a service to the country if we embarked upon legislation of that kind.
I said that we would try to deal with the immediate past, even though we could not make this legislation completely retrospective. We cannot make it retrospective at all, but we can to some extent, by administrative action, deal with difficulties in the immediate past: that is to say, in cases where the transaction is still not completed. Some of the negotiations for purchase go on for a considerable time.
In the case where a transaction for a purchase has not been completed when the Bill comes into force, if local authorities wish to make an ex gratia payment, as the Romford Borough Council has done to Mrs. Pilgrim, we are ready to support them. Where appropriate, these ex gratia payments will rank for Exchequer grant in the same way as if they had been made under the Clause in the future. That is going only a little way, I know, but we have just got to do what we can, and the more cases we can bring in in one way or another, the better it will be. These cases are not unlimited, and the Clause will prevent further cases occurring.
I should like to reply briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), who raised a slightly different point. Under the 1947 Act, there were two schemes of compensation, one under Section 58, which provided the £300 million fund, and the other under Section 59, which provided special compensation in the case of bomb damaged property in certain special circumstances.
There are a few cases—I do not believe they are very many—some of them in my hon. Friend's constituency, of owners of bomb damaged property who were wrongly advised that they came within the scope of the special scheme under Section 59 and, therefore, they made no claim on the £300 million fund. Subsequently, they found that they did not qualify for compensation under the special bomb damage scheme. Meanwhile, the closing date for claims on the £300 million fund had passed, and they were left in the position, like some of the cases to which we have been referring, that they had not put in a claim of any kind. In fact, they are in exactly the same position as all other owners of land who, for one reason or another, failed


to make a claim against the £300 million fund.
In the case of future compulsory acquisition, owners in this position will get exactly the same benefit as everybody else under the new Clause, like all other people who for any reason fail to submit claims. It would not be just, however, to single out this class of people—owners of bomb damage property who made this mistake—for special retrospective treatment more favourable than that which we are able to accord to other persons who failed to put in a claim.

Mr. Mitchison: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on ex gratia payments by local authorities. He cited a case where a transaction was not yet complete. Did I understand him to agree that there might be other recent cases, too? It would, of course, depend on the circumstances and on the date of the transaction.

Mr. Sandys: The statement I made did not go beyond the cases where the transaction is still incomplete. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind cases where further assistance can be given, I will gladly consider them.

Mr. Dudley Williams: May I say to my right hon. Friend that I do not think he has grasped quite clearly the position of my own constituents. They were not people who failed to make a claim. They had made a claim under Section 29, but the regulations which covered——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not make another speech.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 36.—(COMPENSATION FOR SEVERANCE, INJURIOUS AFFECTION AND DISTURBANCE.)

Subsequent Amendments agreed to: In page 43, line 21, leave out from beginning to "for" in line 25, and insert:
(1) In connection with a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies—
(a) any compensation in respect of an interest in land.

In line 31, leave out from "disturbance" to "shall" in line 32.

In page 45, line 15. at end insert:
in which the interest in question subsists;".

Clause 37.—(EFFECT OF PART III ON UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF ESTAB LISHED DEVELOPMENT VALUE.)

In page 46, line 13, leave out from "land" to "had" and insert:
in which the interest acquired or sold subsisted.

In line 19, leave out from "and" to "for" in line 25 and insert:
unless immediately after the acquisition or sale there is outstanding some interest (other than an excepted interest) in that land to which some person other than the acquiring authority is entitled,".

In line 29, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 38 and insert:
(ii) if immediately after the acquisition or sale there is outstanding any such interest as aforesaid, then for the purposes of any other Part of this Act there shall be deducted from the said original balance an amount equal to any part of the relevant balance which is not, or which in the appropriate circumstances would not have been, attributable for the purposes of the said section thirty-two to any such outstanding interest.

In line 43, leave out "that other per-son's" and insert "any such out-standing."

In page 47, line 7, leave out from beginning to "or" and insert "relevant land."

In line 11, leave out "to which the sale related" and insert:
in which the interest sold subsisted.

Clause 38.—(AMENDMENT OF SECTION 22 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

In page 48, line 15, leave out "this Part of."

In line 19, after "and" insert:
in this Part of this Act.

Clause 39.—(REGISTRATION AND APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION for DEPRECIATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 8, leave out "Subsections (2) and (3)" and insert "Subsection (2)."

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Subsection (3) of Clause 28, which precludes lands tribunals from varying an apportionment so as to be inconsistent with a previous apportionment, is quite


inapposite in relation to the apportionments of compensation for depreciation with which the present subsection is concerned. In other words, it is right for lands tribunals to be able to vary the apportionment.

Clause 40.—(EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS COMPENSATION IN CERTAINM CASES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 47, at end insert:
Provided that the amount of any such contribution shall not exceed—

(a) the amount of the compensation for depreciation paid by the local planning authority; or
(b) the unexpended balance of established development value at the date of the making of the order of the land in respect of which that compensation was paid.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As Clause 40 is now drawn, the Minister in making Exchequer contribution has to pay to the local planning authority a contribution of an amount appearing to him to be the amount of compensation which would have been payable by him under Part II or Part V. That is all very well, unless there has been a marked fall in values, in which case the Minister might have to pay more than the value being paid out, or unless there has been a payment of compensation or of development which has reduced the unexpended balance, in which case he might have to pay out the amount of the unexpended balance. This Amendment meets both points.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 20, after "applying" insert:
with any necessary modifications.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object here is to widen the regulation powers beyond the strict application, with the reasons for the need of which I need not trouble the House.

Clause 41.—(RECOVERY, ON SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT, OF COMPENSATION UNDER S. 22 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 50, line 25, at beginning insert:
subsections (1) to (8) of.

In line 28, leave out "it has" and insert "they have."

Clause 42.—(SCOPE OF PART V.)

In page 51, line 30, leave out from "holding" to "and" in line 31.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The point of this Amendment is that there was a drafting defect. The words proposed to be left out might have the result of making compensation payable in respect of the land which was not the subject of claim on the £300 million fund.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 38, leave out from "Act" to end of line 41 and insert:
in relation to a claim for compensation in respect of any such claim holding so subsisting as aforesaid, any such land is referred to as "qualified land" and the claim holding is referred to as "the relevant holding.
(3) Subsection (3) of section sixteen of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act as it has effect for the purposes of Part II of this Act, with the substitution for the reference to a planning decision made after the commencement of this Act of a reference to a planning decision made before the commencement of this Act."—[Special Entry.]

Clause 43.—(RIGHT TO COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF PAST PLANNING DECISIONS, OR PAST REVOCATIONS, ETC. OF PLANNING PERMISSION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 52, line 4, after "if" insert "(i)."

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the next nine Amendments are all inter-related and are in large part drafting, but, as examination of the Clause will show, it is a rather involved bit of drafting. Perhaps I should say a general word about what we are trying to do.
There are three fairly substantial changes made to the Clause. The most important of them is the extension of subsection (1) to enable compensation to be claimed by persons who do not now own an interest in the land but did own an interest at the time of the planning decision or order, and subsequently sold it at a date after 18th November, 1952, keeping the claim on the fund. The existence of the planning restriction will have affected the price obtained, and it is, therefore, only fair that the former owner should be able to claim under the Clause. That is, in fact, effected by the next Amendment.
The second change of some consequence is the introduction of a new subsection, subsection (2), on page 52, line 21, which is to enable a mortgagee who has taken an assignment of the Part VI claim as security to claim any compensation to which the mortgagor would have been entitled had he kept the claim. At present, he is disqualified from claiming by the fact that he does not own an interest in the land.
The third main change is the separation of the provisions governing the assessment of the depreciation caused by a revocation or modification order from those having effect in the case of a previous planning decision. Those are the three main changes effected in the Clause by the Amendment. The rest are drafting, consequent upon those changes.

Mr. Sparks: Can I take it that the hon. Gentleman has now moved a series of Amendments, which includes the Amendment in page 52, line 5, which would insert a new sub-paragraph (ii)? I wanted to direct my remarks to that Amendment in particular.

Mr. Deedes: It was not my intention to move all the Amendments, but to give a general survey of them.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: We have no objection to their being moved together.

Mr. Speaker: They cannot be moved together. They must be moved seriatim, but they can be discussed together as they are inter-related, and they may be put to the House together.

Mr. Sparks: It is now proposed to amend Clause 43 to enable the person

who was in possession of the claim holding and who disposed of his land after 18th November, 1952, and before the coming into operation of the Bill, to claim compensation for any planning restriction Which there might have been upon his land at the time that he sold it.
In principle that is unworthy of our consideration, because on 18th November, 1952, the Minister and his hon. Friends restored what they said was a free market in land. Any land sold after 18th November, 1952, could then have been sold—and I am sure was sold—at its full market value. I cannot understand why such an owner should come along so many years afterwards and claim compensation for a planning restriction on a piece of land which he has sold to somebody else in the meantime.
When the Amendment was moved in another place, the case made for it was that when that land was sold very little of the development value contained in the claim would have been realised on sale. It was said:
… although he may have realised in the sale only a fraction of the unrestricted value of the land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 2nd November, 1954; Vol. 189, c. 1050.]
That may be so in a few cases, but in a good many cases the whole of the unrestricted value of the land would have been realised.
The right hon. Gentleman is conceding not just the claim of the person who sold the land at only a fraction of the unrestricted value, but the right of compensation to those who realised the full market value of their land. I cannot see the case for that at all. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain what connection the claim holding has with the case with which we are now dealing, because before such an owner can claim compensation he must be himself in possession of the claim holding. There may be those who have sold the claim holding to the new purchaser of the land. He may have bought the land and the claim holding as well, but, at the same time, he would have had to pay a value in excess of its immediate use value. That also would have included planning restriction.
I cannot understand why such a person is not entitled to a claim for planning


restrictions whereas the other person who sold the land and retained the claim holding is entitled to claim compensation for past planning restriction. There does not seem to be a fair balance between those cases. If it is right that compensation should be paid for planning restrictions upon a piece of land which existed before 18th November, 1952, I should think it fair that all persons, whether or not they were in possession of a claim holding, should be entitled to that compensation.
Another consideration arises. As long as the claim holding is in existence if at any future time a local authority desires to acquire that piece of land, it does not matter through how many hands the land has passed in the meantime, if there is a claim holding upon it the local authority has to pay that claim holding plus the use value and one-seventh. That being so, the claim holding is realised when a local authority wants to acquire that land. If a local authority does not want to acquire that land the claim holding cannot be realised after 18th November, 1952. I do not see the connection between the possession of a claim holding entitling one to compensation for past planning restrictions and the absence of a claim holding denying the individual that right.
It seems that there is no case whatever for making compensation retrospective in cases where land has been sold on and from the date of the opening of the free market in land on 18th November, 1952. In any case, even if there had been no claim holding on the land, if no established claim had been made on the land, the value of the land to the individual was no more than its value on the basis of planning consent. Therefore, the individual could only realise that land after 18th November, 1952, for the value it was to him previously, irrespective of any established claim.
We are giving a bonus to persons who are not really entitled to receive that bonus—a bonus by way of compensation for planning restrictions on the land which they had already sold, and might well have sold for its full market value, to any other purchaser. The new purchaser buys the land with the planning restriction upon it, but he is not entitled to compensation.
9.30 p.m.
That seems to me to be an entire inconsistency, unless there is something more in the case for these Amendments than appears on the surface. I agree that the purposes of the Bill are so obscure, and its intentions so difficult to understand, that it may well be that my analysis is quite wrong. If so, I should like to be corrected, but it seems to me that this is opening the door very wide. It is not merely confined to the individual who sells his land at a fraction of the unrestricted value, but it includes a whole category of people who sold land after 18th November, 1952, and who received the full market price for it, the vendor retaining the claim holding.
I do not see why such persons should be entitled to further compensation for planning restriction if they sold land at the market price. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to give them the right, not only to the market price of the land, but to more for any planning restriction which may have been on it when the sale took place; and to give a title to the claim holding which can be realised when a local authority might at a later date desire to purchase the land.

Mr. Deedes: By leave of the House, I will do my best to give the assurance for which the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has been seeking, although he will appreciate that this is an exceedingly complex part of the Bill
He referred, first, to the separation of the claim from the land, but that is not the only complication which has arisen. The whole Measure bristles with complications, arising from the fact that claims have become separated from the land and many things have been done to the claims. That is probably the most potent source of complication in this legislation. The real answer to the point raised by the hon. Member is that this is not designed so much to satisfy one individual or another, but it is a matter of principle. The purpose is to remedy the obvious injustice of not paying compensation where restriction has caused loss. That is the basic principle.
We are not doing it merely because neither the present owner of the land can claim nor the seller who does not own the land now. The object is that there should be compensation paid, not as between those two individuals, but where a


restriction has caused a loss. The hon. Member realised that there is an extremely important principle which must be upheld.

Mr. Sparks: I cannot see what the claim holding has to do with this claim for compensation for planning restriction.

Mr. Deedes: I made the point to the hon. Gentleman that where the claim and the land have become separated, the claim and the claim holding have become separated. I agree that it is not ideal.

Mr. Speaker: If I understood the Parliamentary Secretary aright, the discussion we have had covers the next 10 Amendments, that is to say, down to the Amendment in page 53, line 13, inclusive of the last.

Mr. Deedes: That is correct.

Mr. Speaker: If the House is agreed, I can put them en bloc.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 5, leave out from "land" to "interest" in line 7, and insert:
or
(ii) having been entitled to an interest in any qualified land at the date of the decision or order, he sold that interest (otherwise than to a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) in pursuance of a contract made after that date and during the period beginning with the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and ending immediately before the commencement of this Act,
and the value of that interest or of another interest which has merged therein or, in the case of an interest extending to other land, the value of that or of that other".
In line 21, at end insert:
(2) A person who is entitled to the relevant holding as mortgagee shall be entitled to such compensation as aforesaid, notwithstanding that he does not satisfy the conditions set out in paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the preceding subsection, if the mortgagor would have been entitled to such compensation if he had continued to be the holder of the relevant holding.
In line 23, after "land" insert:
or of an interest in so far as it subsisted in qualified land".
In line 24, leave out "or order."
In line 25, leave out "sections twenty-three and twenty-four" and insert "section twenty-three."
In line 29, leave out from "if" to "and" in line 33, and insert:
the reference in subsection (1) of the said section twenty-three to Part II of this Act were a reference to this Part of this Act;
In line 35, at end, insert:
and in the application of subsection (2) of the said section twenty-three in a case to which paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of this section applies, no account shall be taken of any grant of, or undertaking to grant, planning permission made or given after the making of the contract of sale.
In line 38, leave out first "(6)" and insert "(4)".
In line 41, at end, insert:
Provided that, in a case to which paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of this section applies, for the reference in the said section twenty-two to the Minister's giving notice of his findings in respect of the claim for compensation there shall be substituted a reference to the making of the contract of sale.
(4) In determining for the purposes of a claim for compensation under this Part of this Act whether, or to what extent, the value of an interest in land was depreciated by such an order as aforesaid—

(a) regard shall be had to any compensation which has become payable to the person entitled to that interest in respect of that order under section twenty-two of the principal Act otherwise than by virtue of the proviso to subsection (1) of that section;
(b) any grant of, or undertaking to grant, planning permission made or given during the period between the making of the order and the time when the Minister gives notice of his findings in respect of that claim, being a grant or undertaking which is in force at the end of that period, shall be taken into account as if it had been in force at the beginning of that period;
(c) Part VII of the principal Act shall be deemed not to have applied after the date when the order was made:
Provided that, in a case to which paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of this section applies, no account shall be taken of any grant or undertaking made or given after the making of the contract of sale.
(5) Where the interest to which the holder of the relevant holding is entitled or, as the case may be, which he sold, is or was an interest in reversion immediately expectant upon the termination of a tenancy granted after the planning decision or order and on or after the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect as if that tenancy had not been granted.

Clause 44.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR PAST PLANNING DECISIONS, REVOCATIONS, ETC.)

In page 53, line 13, leave out from "if" to end of line.—[Several with Special Entries.]

Lords Amendment: In page 53, line 17, at end insert:
Provided that where the same person is entitled to such compensation as aforesaid in respect of more than one relevant holding, or in respect of more than one interest, or in respect both of more than one relevant holding and of more than one interest, the aggregate principal amount payable to that person by way of such compensation in respect of all interests in respect of which he is so entitled in so far as they subsisted in the same land shall not exceed whichever is the less of the following amounts, that is to say—

(i) the aggregate of the amounts by which the value of each respectively of those interests in so far as it subsisted in that land was depreciated by the decision or order; or
(ii) the aggregate of the fractions of the respective values of all relevant holdings of which that person is the holder which attached to that land.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is consequential upon the next Amendment, which is the only one of consequence in this Clause. It provides for cases where the same person is able to claim in respect of more than one interest in land affected by the decision or in respect of more than one claim holding relating to that land. It ensures that he will not, when the sum comes to be worked out, get more than the aggregate depreciation which he sustained, or the aggregate of his claim holdings, if that be less. It is really a kind of mathematical ceiling to what he is entitled to receive.
The other Amendments which follow here are drafting Amendments, which are really consequential upon this one.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 53, line 18, leave out from "If" to third "the."

In line 20, leave out "was" and insert "is."

In line 25, leave out "were and were" and insert "are and are."

Clause 45.—(CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER PART V, AND REVIEW OF PAST DECISIONS AND ORDERS.)

In page 53, line 28, leave out from first "of" to "shall" in line 30 and insert:
sections twenty-five and twenty-eight of this Act.
In line 32, leave out "section twenty-five of this Act" and insert:
the said section twenty-five.
In line 41, leave out "in such a case" and insert:
the claim is in respect of a refusal of permission or of a grant of permission subject to conditions and."—[Special Entry.]
In page 54, line 1, leave out from "relates" to end of line 2 and insert:
In this subsection, the reference to a decision more favourable to the applicant shall be construed—

(a) in relation to a refusal of permission, as a reference to a decision granting the permission, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, and either as respects the whole or as respects part of the land to which the application for permission related; and
(b) in relation to a grant of permission subject to conditions, as a reference to a decision granting the permission applied for unconditionally or subject to less stringent conditions."

In line 14, leave out subsection (5).—[Special Entry.]

Clause 46.—(PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION UNDER PART V, AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING THERETO.)

Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 9, at end insert:
Provided that if at any time an amount becomes recoverable under section thirty of this Act, as applied by the subsequent provisions of this section, in respect of that compensation, then, for the purposes of Parts II and III of this Act, paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection shall have effect as from than time as if the principal amount of that compensation had been reduced by a sum equal to seven-eighths of the amount which has so become recoverable.
(3) Where in the case of any claim holding (in this subsection referred to as "the parent holding") compensation under this Part of this Act is payable in respect of the depreciation of an interest in land by one or more planning decisions or orders, and any such decision or order did not extend to the whole of the area of the parent holding, then, both for the purposes of the last preceding subsection and for the purposes of Parts II and III of this Act—

(a) the parent holding shall be treated as having been divided immediately before the commencement of this Act into as many


separate claim holdings, with such areas, as may be necessary to ensure that in the case of each holding either any such decision or order extending to the area of that holding extended to the whole thereof or that no such decision or order extended to the area of that holding;
(b) the value of each of the separate holdings respectively shall be taken to be that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to the part of the area of the parent holding constituting the area of the separate holding;
(c) the authority determining the amount of any such compensation shall apportion that amount between the areas of the separate claim holdings to which the decision or order in question extended in such manner as appears to that authority proper, and the portion of that amount apportioned to the area of any separate claim holding shall be taken to be compensation payable under this Part of this Act in respect of that claim holding.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The topic here is the question of the recovery of Part V compensation, when paid, upon subsequent development. The Amendment deals with two points. The first, the proviso, is inserted, because in this part. Clause 30 (9) will not apply for reasons with which I need not trouble the House and subsection (3) is to deal with cases where the payment is made only in respect of part of the area of the claim holding.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 55, line 11, after "Act" insert:
except subsection (9) of the said section thirty.

Clause 48.—(PROVISION OF INFORMATION AS TO UNEXPENDED BALANCE, ETC.)

Lords Amendment: In page 56, line 39, after "apportionment" insert:
or, in the case of a certificate under the last preceding subsection, involves the calculation of a deduction from the original unexpended balance of established development value of the land by virtue of subsection (4) of section eighteen of this Act.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the next four Amendments are grouped together and, with permission, perhaps I might say a word about all of them.
Subsection (2) provides for the issue to the acquiring authority of a certificate stating the amount of the unexpended balance at the date of the notice to treat. Subsection (3) already provides opportunity for those concerned to dispute any new apportionment involved in the calculation. However, there is a second element involved which may lead to differences of opinion, and that is the extent to which the unexpended balance should be written down under Clause 18 (4) to take account of any development of land. The Amendments provide for this also to be the subject of representation and reference to the Lands Tribunal.
The new subsection (6) makes a certificate issued to an acquiring authority under subsection (2) conclusive evidence of the unexpended balance. Since those concerned will have full opportunity of carrying the matter to the Lands Tribunal before the certificate is issued, there should be no question of their being able to contest it again in arbitration proceedings under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919.
The second part of the subsection obviates the need to produce evidence in support of any facts stated in a certificate under subsection (1), unless they are contested.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 57, line 4, after "apportionment" insert "or calculation."

In line 5, after "apportionment" insert "or calculation."

In line 11, after "apportionment" insert "or calculation."

In line 16, after "apportionment" insert "or calculation."

In line 40, at end insert:
(6) A certificate under subsection (2) of this section shall be conclusive evidence of the unexpended balance shown therein, and a certificate under subsection (1) of this section shall be sufficient proof of any facts stated therein unless the contrary is shown.

Clause 49.—(CANCELLATION OR REDUCTION OF LIABILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT CHARGES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 58, line 29, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert:
(4) Where, for the purposes of the Second Schedule to this Act, one or more development charges such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are covered by a


pledge of one or more claim holdings to the Central Land Board, and by virtue of the provisions of that Schedule one or more of those claim holdings are deemed to have been extinguished or reduced in value by reference to the unpaid balance of the charge or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the unpaid balances of the charges, as therein mentioned, a sum equal to, or to the aggregate of—

(a) the value of any such holding which is deemed to have been extinguished; and
(b) the amount of the reduction in the value of any such holding which is deemed to have been reduced in value but not extinguished,
shall be deducted from that balance or that aggregate of balances and—

(i) if that sum is equal to that balance or aggregate of balances, the charge or charges and any liability of any person in respect thereof shall be discharged;
(ii) if that sum is less than that balance or aggregate of balances, the charge or charges, or the balance or respective balances thereof remaining unpaid at the commencement of this Act, shall be reduced by an amount, or, as the case may be, shall be reduced rateably by an aggregate amount, equal to that sum:
Provided that where paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to this Act applies, any development charge in connection with which the claim holding in question was pledged in accordance with the arrangements mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph and any liability of any person in respect thereof shall be discharged without regard to the treatment of the claim holding in question.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House will appreciate that it is proposed to make certain Amendments to the Second Schedule relating to pledged holdings. The purpose is to aggregate them in order to simplify the calculations involved. As Clause 49 (4) provides for the corresponding discharge of liability for development charge, some changes are necessary in this Clause, and it is for that purpose that the Amendment is moved.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The Amendment appears to contain a number of rather complicated provisions, and I think that it at least warrants the passing attention of the House. As I understand it, we are dealing with the case of the owner with interest who has incurred liability for development charge under the 1947 Act, and has pledged his claim holding to the Central Land Board against his development charge. The amount of the claim holding pledged is to be deducted

from the balance of development charge due.
Up to that point, one can understand the position, but a difficulty appears to arise in the case of a claim holding which is divided into different parcels and where the whole of the value of the claim holding comprising all these parcels has been pledged against the advance payment of development charge in respect of the development of one of the pieces of land comprising the claim holding.
9.45 p.m.
I can understand the desirability of that. I can understand that, if the whole of the claim holding was pledged against the development charge levied in respect of the development of one part of the claim holding, the consequence of that might be a loss on the part of the Central Land Board, and, consequently, a very much greater payment would have to be made by it when eventually permission was sought for the development of the other parcels of land within the claim holding at a subsequent date.
It is a difficult point, but I cannot help thinking that it is a pity to rush through it, and if any further explanation of it could be offered to the House, it would be appreciated. I see nothing in the Lords Amendment which is open to objection on this side of the House, but if the matter could be explained a little more fully, it would be appreciated.

The Solicitor-General: If I may reply, by leave of the House, I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has in mind the context of the provision made by another Amendment from another place. When plot A has been developed and plot B has not been developed, and when the developed plot was not pledged and the undeveloped plot was pledged, there is provision, by an Amendment to which we shall come later—it is in page 91, line 28—which really gets the hon. Gentleman out of his difficulty. We shall come to that Amendment later, and, subject to that, I hope that the House does not require any further explanation.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 59, line 39, leave out "subsections (2) and" and insert "subsection."

In line 42, after "section" insert:
except in subsection (4) thereof.

Clause 50.—(EXCHEQUER GRANTS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 61, line 32, at end, insert:
Provided that, in relation to—

(i) land acquired for use as a public open space; or
(ii) such part, if any, of any land appropriated as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section as is intended for such use,
the regulations may provide that, if in any particular case the Minister is satisfied that, having regard to the expenditure in respect of which the grant is to be made and the financial circumstances of the local authority concerned, it is just that a higher grant should be made, the amount of the grant in that particular case shall be an amount equal to such percentage, exceeding fifty but not exceeding seventy-five per cent., of the costs, excess or expenditure aforesaid as the Minister may determine.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I do not think I need say very much about this proposal. This Amendment provides that additional grants up to 25 per cent., making a maximum of 75 per cent. in all, may where necessary be given to local authorities to assist them in meeting the cost of providing land for open spaces, and, in particular, for the encouragement of playing fields.

Mr. Sparks: I should like to welcome this Amendment on behalf of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. We feel that the right hon. Gentleman has done the right thing here in helping local authorities to acquire land for public open spaces, but there is one point that I think requires to be cleared up. The Amendment contains the words:
… having regard to the expenditure in respect of which the grant is to be made and the financial circumstances of the local authority concerned,
and it provides for a higher grant being made. Does that really mean that the right hon. Gentleman contemplates that in some cases the grant will be only 50 per cent. while in others it may be 75 per cent.?
I think it would be of importance to the House and to the local authorities if we could know what exactly was in the Minister's mind and what he means by the financial circumstances of the local authority concerned. It usually happens that the cost of land for public open spaces is very much higher in congested areas, where it is badly needed, than it

is in rural areas. On this side of the House we would like to know what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind and how he proposes to determine whether the financial circumstances of a local authority are such as to justify his paying the higher grant. What is the data upon which he will work? We ought to know something about that.

Mr. Sandys: By leave of the House, may I say that we are following what, to the other side of the House, is no doubt a very respected precedent. Under the 1947 Act, the rate of grant which was available varied from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent., according to the financial circumstances of the local authority concerned. In this case, we are concerned with two questions: first, the same question of financial resources and, secondly, the more important one, the cost of obtaining the land. That cost will vary considerably from area to area, and to some extent will be affected by the Bill. Some authorities will be affected more than others. The cost will tend to be somewhat higher in areas where, for example, the land which the authority wishes to acquire is on the fringe of an expanding city.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 52.—(RECOVERY OF CERTAIN SUMS FROM ACQUIRING AUTHORITIES.)

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to:

In page 64, line 37, leave out "or sale".

In page 65, line 29, leave out from "is" to end of line 32 and insert:
by virtue of subsection (4) of section fifty-seven of this Act to be treated as apportioned to the land in which the interest acquired or sold subsisted.

Clause 56.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TO IRONSTONE RESTORATION FUND.)

Lords Amendment: In page 69, line 43, at end, insert:
and the Minister may by order made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, direct that, as from the date of the order or such earlier date as may be specified in the order, this subsection shall not apply to such other ironstone as may be so specified, being ironstone an interest in which is held on the date of the order on charitable trusts or for charitable purposes.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment enables the Minister to make orders, subject to annulment in either House, exempting certain ironstone land owned by charities from the liability imposed by the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, as amended by this Clause, to contribute a full 2¼d. a ton to the Ironstone Restoration Fund.

Mr. Irvine: This Amendment raises an interesting point. One effect of the Bill is to increase the rate of contribution from ironstone operators to the Ironstone Restoration Fund, but the proviso exempts ironstone, interest in which is held by a charitable trust. The point that needs watching is that under the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, that class of interest is already exempted from payment to that fund. The proviso makes it clear that the increase proposed in the Bill shall not apply where the proprietors are already exempted from payment to the Fund.
Apart from that, another interesting point arises from the Amendment. Under the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, the Minister of Fuel and Power has authority to determine which developer of ironstone operations is to be exempted from the payment to the Ironstone Restoration Fund on the ground that it is a charitable trust. That duty and obligation was placed by the 1951 Act on the Minister of Fuel and Power.
It was expressly provided by Section 7 of the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, that no order was to be made under that Section after 31st December, 1952. I ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to be good enough to observe the significance of the fact that under the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, the Minister of Fuel and Power was given the power to determine in respect of any ironstone operator that he was a charitable trust and should, therefore, be exempted from this contribution to the Ironstone Restoration Fund, but that the Minister was not permitted under the statute to exercise those powers after 31st December, 1952.
What do we find would happen under the Amendment now before the House? We find that those powers which were formerly held by the Minister of Fuel and Power, and which were expressly limited to making an order before a date in 1952,

are being revised and entrusted to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. One knows that all sorts of unforeseen consequences follow from a reshuffle, but I suggest that this is the kind of consequence that no rational society can possibly attribute to that sort of occasion.
It really is a serious point which I venture to make to the House. It is a matter of importance and significance that a power formerly allocated by Parliament to the Minister of Fuel and Power under the 1951 Act, and which was subjected to the most explicit reservations so that he could not make an order after 1952, should now be revised and handed over to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Quite apart from being a fearful trap for those who practice in the law, I venture to suggest that this is something to which there is bound to be objection because of its inconsequence and because of the abandonment which it manifests from the provisions formerly operating under the 1951 Act. I hope that some explanation of the process may be given, and, if anyone is daring enough, some defence.

Mr. Deedes: By leave of the House, I should like to say that the hon. Gentleman has some claim to special knowledge on this point, but I should like to give a little more background to this Amendment which, I think, will provide some answers to the points he has raised. As he has already said, Section 7 of the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, enabled the Minister to make orders exempting land held on charitable trusts or for charitable purposes from the obligation imposed by that Act.
Under Section 7 (2) of the Act, a time limit up to 31st December, 1952, was imposed on the Minister's powers to ensure that the financial picture should be clear before the Part VI payments were made. It is understood, however, at this point, that there is some amount of charity-owned ironstone land for which no Part VI claim has been established. Previously, this did not affect the position for, as no Part VI payment would fall to be made, therefore no slice for the fund could be taken. Now, under subsection (1), such charities would be forced to contribute 1⅛d. per ton to the fund unless exempted by the Minister from doing so.

Mr. Irvine: What is the explanation of the removal of this power from the Minister of Fuel and Power?

Mr. Deedes: I am not aware of the point which the hon. Member made and I do not feel that it arises directly out of the Amendment. Nevertheless, I agree that it is an interesting point.
Where, in the circumstances described, no request for exemption under Section 7 was made, this Amendment will enable the Minister to make an exemption order. I think that that generally covers the point.

10.0 p.m.

Lords Amendment: In page 69, line 46, after "lease" insert:
or by the person granted a right to work minerals by an order under Part I of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923,".

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The substance of the Amendments made to the Clause is contained in this Amendment and that which follows it. As they are interrelated, perhaps I may deal with them together.
The main purpose of the Amendments is to establish a uniform basis for the payment of the royalty owner's contributions to the Ironstone Restoration Fund by deleting the provisos (a) and (b) which at present apply to Clause 56 (2). The effect will be that in every leasehold case where an ironstone producer has to pay 2¼d. per ton of ironstone to the fund, this being his own and the royalty owner's contribution—which is half of that—he will have the right to recover the royalty owner's share by way of a deduction from the royalties or other payments under the lease.
A secondary purpose is to ensure that the right to deduct from royalties applies also to an operator working under an award of working rights by the High Court under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. That is achieved by the first Amendment; and it explains why the main purpose is not achieved in the second by a simple deletion of the provisos (a) and (b). Certain consequential Amendments to the

Mineral Workings Act, 1951, are made in the Seventh Schedule.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 70, line 2, leave out from "lease" to "(which" in line 20 and insert:
or order, be deducted in accordance with the provisions of that Schedule from payments by the lessee under the lease or by that person under the order, or may be otherwise recovered in accordance with those provisions by the lessee or by that person:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any mining lease made after the fifteenth day of February and before the first day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, which contained a provision expressly excluding the operation of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section six of the said Act of 1951.

Lords Amendment: In page 70, line 23, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This relates to subsection (3), which it is proposed shall be dropped. The subsection provides for a deduction to be made for the Ironstone Restoration Fund from all compensation payments made in respect of ironstone under this Bill or under any other enactment, for example the Mining Code. The Amendment is made in order to simplfy the administration of the provisions of the Bill in relation to the fund. The fund is not likely to suffer financially by the deletion of the subsection.

Clause 57.—(RECOVERY, ON SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT, OF PAYMENTS UNDER S. 59 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 71, line 13, at end, insert:
or which would be so recoverable but for the provisions of paragraph (a) of the proviso to that subsection;

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Subsection (7) of Clause 52 provides for the recovery from public authorities of any payments made under Section 59 of the 1947 Act in respect of an interest in land which they have acquired. An exception is to be made in the cases specified in subsections (2) and (3) of the Clause. The present Amendment is


necessary to prevent that exception from being nullified by the provisions of the present Clause, under which Section 59 payments are to be registered as local land charges and recoverable on development of the land. The effect of the Amendment is that these excepted payments will not be registered and thus will not be recoverable.

Mr. Powell: It may be that something has been overlooked. I see that the reference in this Amendment is to paragraph (a) of the proviso to Clause 52 (7), but the paragraphs of the proviso referred to are numbered (i), (ii) and (iii).

Mr. Deedes: Mr. Deedes indicated assent.

Lords Amendment: In page 71, line 34, after "Act" insert:
, except subsection (9) thereof,

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment. Clause 30 (9) is not applicable in the present context.

Lords Amendment: In page 71, line 43, leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The effect of this Amendment is to delete the provision whereby anyone developing land within one year of the coming into operation of the Bill would have become liable to repay any payment made under Section 59 of the 1947 Act, which might subsequently be registered against the land. This retrospective charge was strongly objected to in debate, and has been criticised in both Houses, and I think that its disappearance will probably be welcomed.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

New Clause "B."—(APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 74, line 33, at end insert new Clause "B":
(1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an application is made to a local planning authority for permission to develop land by the erection thereon of an industrial building, being an application which would, apart

from this section, be of no effect by virtue of subsection (4) of section fourteen of the principal Act (which provides that certain applications for such permission shall be of no effect unless it is certified by the Board of Trade that the development in question can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry), the local planning authority shall consider whether, if the requirements of the said subsection (4) had been satisfied, they would nevertheless have refused the permission sought by the application either as respects the whole or as respects part of the land to which the application relates; and if they are of opinion that they would so have refused that permission they shall serve on the applicant a notice in writing to that effect.
(2) Where a notice has been served under the preceding subsection as respects the whole or part of any land, the provisions of this Act and of sections nineteen and twenty of the principal Act, and, where by virtue of the preceding provisions of this subsection a direction has been given under subsection (3) of section twenty-six of this Act, the other provisions of the principal Act, shall have effect as respects that land or that part thereof as if the application had been of effect and permission had been refused.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of this new Clause is to prevent the unfairness which would arise from possible conflict between Clause 19 of the Bill and Section 14 (4) of the 1947 Act. This new Clause, while leaving Section 14 (4) of that Act untouched, makes it possible for the owner of the land to obtain from the planning authority a notice to the effect that even if a Board of Trade certificate had been granted planning permission would have been refused. Such a notice will rank as a refusal for purposes of obtaining compensation.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: This is an important new Clause and it seems to be quite unjustifiable as we understand it, but if we have misunderstood it I shall be very glad to have an explanation. It is getting late and I shall merely put the difficulty to the Minister without developing it at length, and then hope that we shall be able to take our decisions on it one way or the other.
The present position is that the Board of Trade has to give an industrial development certificate before an application for planning permission is valid if permission is required for industrial development. Therefore, if the application to the Board of Trade is refused the owner cannot get compensation. The whole principle underlying this is that the Board of Trade


is dealing with the distribution of industry and if on economic grounds it comes to the conclusion that there should be no industrial development on this owner's property, then industrial development is not to take place, and it is to be treated in the same way as any other property, for instance, agricultural land in North of Scotland, or something of that kind, which obviously has no industrial value at all and is not in accordance with public requirements and economic needs of the country, and is not to be treated as land with industrial potentialities.
The Amendment enables the local planning authority to say that if the industrial development certificate had been granted—whereas, of course, it has not been granted—it would have refused permission, and, therefore, compensation would become payable. Quite clearly, that undermines the whole principle, as I understand it, of the Board of Trade industrial development certificate. In addition, the Amendment requires from the local planning authority a decision in hypothetical circumstances which have not, in fact, taken place.
Obviously, that is a most undesirable kind of exercise for the local planning authority to perform. It becomes some form of guesswork, in which the local authority might incline one way or another according to circumstances, and one simply does not know what the position is. We are no longer in the realm of facts but are in the realm of guesswork as to what would have been done in circumstances which would not, in fact have taken place.
As far as I understand from the Clause, the result of all this appears to be that if the Board of Trade refuses planning permission, or is taken to have refused planning permission, and the planning authority, having gone through this hypothetical exercise, would also have come to the conclusion that it too would have refused planning permission, compensation then becomes payable. That is to say, there is a refusal on the part of the Board of Trade and on the part of the planning authority, and compensation then becomes payable.
Let us consider the other set of facts. If the Board of Trade has refused, or is taken to have refused, planning permission, and the planning authority comes to

the conclusion, not that it would have refused to grant planning permission, but that it would have granted it, as I understand the Clause no compensation would be payable. If that is right, it means that if a development is doubly objectionable, subject to objection from the Board of Trade and from the planning authority, compensation would be paid. If, however, it is not doubly objectionable, but is only singly objectionable, because the local planning authority would not have refused permission, no compensation becomes payable.
If this analysis of the new Clause is correct, and if that is its result, it is ludicrous and would be quite unacceptable. It is contrary to all common sense. It is again, perhaps, an instance of the bad jumbled concoction that we have here in the form of this Bill. It is another instance of the fact that we should have had more opportunity of considering all this at greater leisure than we have had, both since these Amendments came to this House from another place and in the time which it has been possible to devote to these matters towards the end of this Session.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has put an amusing but none the less not altogether fair complexion on the new Clause. The Clause was necessary to avoid what otherwise would have been a clear injustice and unfairness. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps I might be allowed to explain.
Under the 1947 Act, an owner would have received his claim, whatever it might have been, for the development value of the land. Had it been in the more remote parts of the Highlands of Scotland, as the hon. and learned Member mentioned, the claim probably would not have amounted to very much; but that would have been taken into account. Under the Bill, compensation is payable still on the basis of the 1947 Act claim; the basis, therefore, remains the same. But the question of compensation arises only when planning permission is refused and that is the issue here. The owner who would have received an amount of compensation under his claim if the 1947 Act had continued would, because of this unexpected, perhaps unforeseen conflict between the two Acts, finds himself in a position where he cannot get any.
10.15 p.m.
The basis remains the same as regards the unexpended balance and the development value, but he cannot get the compensation if he is debarred from making his application to the planning authority because the planning authority cannot refuse unless it receives an application. Under the 1947 Act he is debarred from making his application for planning permission unless he can accompany it with a certificate from the Board of Trade saying that this is desirable from the point of view of the distribution of industry.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made a point which, at first sight, gives the impression that this makes nonsense when he say that if the local authority and the Board of Trade refue, then the man would get his compensation but if only the Board of Trade refuse then he would not get his compensation. I think the short answer to that is that the reasons which may cause the Board of Trade to refuse its certificate are very wide and varied, and some of the grounds on which it may be refused are of a purely temporary character.
For instance, there may be a temporary shortage of labour in a particular area or for one reason or another there may be conditions which will not necessarily continue. Therefore, it is possible for the owner of the land to renew his application at a later stage, obtain a certificate from the Board of Trade and after planning permission is refused he will get his compensation. If planning permission is granted he will be able to go ahead and develop his land.

Mr. MacColl: I do not want to detain the House, particularly as we want to

get to the end of the Lords Amendments, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to have failed completely to grasp the real significance of our opposition to this Amendment. Take my constituency, Widnes, as an example. Suppose there were to be some heavy industrial development and an application were made for a factory and it was refused by the Board of Trade on the grounds that it was desirable to attract light industry to the area. There would be no objection on planning grounds to the industrial development in the constituency and, therefore, in that case there would be no compensation.

But if the applicant decided to build the factory in the middle of a residential area or in an area of high amenity value, not only would that be iniquitous from the economic point of view, but it would also be iniquitous from the amenity point of view. That is a double iniquity, but he will get compensation. Therefore, the position is just as ludicrous as my hon. and learned Friend suggested.

The example which the right hon. Gentleman gave answers itself, because if the industrial certificate ultimately is waived then the views of the planning authority can he tested. At that stage when the views are tested either the factory is building or the pinch of planning is effected. The whole basis of the Bill is that it is at that stage that compensation should be paid, and the Clause in introducing a new principle in making a confused position more confusing is thoroughly unjust and unfair.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 142.

Division No. 237.]
AYES
[10.20 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Carr, Robert
Finlay, Graeme


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Aiport, C. J. M.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cole, Norman
Foster, John


Baldwin, A. E.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Glover, D.


Birch, Nigel
Deedes, W. F.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Bishop, F. P.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Gough, C. F. H.


Bowen, E. R.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Gower, H. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Boyle, Sir Edward
Doughty, C. J. A.
Grimond, J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Drewe, Sir C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Erroll, F. J.
Heath, Edward


Bullard, D. G.
Fell, A.
Higgs, J. M. C.




Hirst, Geoffrey
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Neave, Airey
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicholls, Harmar
Sharples, Maj. R. C.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Oakshott, H. D.
Soames, Capt. C.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Speir, R. M.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Osborne, C.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Kaberry, D.
Page, R. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Partridge, E.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Kerr, H. W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Teeling, W.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lampton, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Leather, E. H. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Powell, J. Enoch
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Turton, R. H.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Profumo, J. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Longden, Gilbert
Raikes, Sir Victor
Vosper, D. F.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ramsden, J. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wall, Major Patrick


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rees-Davies, W, R.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Renton, D. L. M.
Wellwood, W.


Manningham-Buller, Rt.Hn. Sir Reginald
Ridsdale, J. E.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Robson-Brown, W.
Wills, G.


Marples, A. E.
Roper, Sir Harold
Woollam, John Victor


Maude, Angus
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard



Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Russell, R. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Mr. Studholme and


Mellor, Sir John
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Colonel J. H. Harrison.




NOES


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hamilton, W. W.
Mort, D. L.


Balfour, A.
Hannan, W.
Moyle, A.


Bartley, P.
Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Bence, C. R.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Oliver, G. H.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.


Benson, G.
Herbison, Miss M
Owen, W. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hobson, C. R.
Padley, W. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Holman, p.
Paling, Rt. Hon W. (Dearne Valley)


Boardman, H.
Holmes, Horace
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Houghton, Douglas
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bowden, H. W.
Hoy, J. H.
Pannell, Charles


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Parker, J.


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paton, J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Peart, T. F.


Burke, W. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Champion, A, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Probert, A. R.


Chapman, W. D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Proctor, W. T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reeves, J.


Clunie, J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Coldrick, W.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Collick, P. H.




Collins, V. J.
Keenan, W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Culled, Mrs. A.
Lawson, G. M.
Ross, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Deer, G
Lindgren, G. S.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Delargy, H. J.
Logan, D. G.
Skeffington, A. M.


Dodds, N. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McInnes, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McLeavy, F.
Steele, T.


Fernybough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Fienburgh, W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sylvester, G. O


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mason, Roy
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrefkin)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mikardo, Ian
Thornton, E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Wallace, H. W.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morley, R.
Warbey, W. M.







West, D. G.
Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Wheeldon, W. E.
Willey, F. T.
Yates, V. F.


White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)



White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Popplewell

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I have reason to believe that it will be for the convenience of the House if I put the rest of the Lords Amendments page by page.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask whether there is any business before the House? If not, may I ask if the House intends to adjourn?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I gather that the business is the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, and I am waiting for a Minister to move that the Lords Amendments be now considered.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I protest against this business being taken at this hour of the night.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Commander Galbraith.]

Mr. Douglas Johnston: The confusion which has gone on for the last few moments and the fact that the Lords Amendments are being brought before the House at this hour are somewhat indicative of the contempt with which this Government treat Scottish business. We have had no apology or explanation from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and no apology or explanation from the Leader of the House, who is not present. I can only take his absence as meaning that he thinks nothing of Scottish business and regards it beneath his notice. I hope that Scotland will pay attention to that.
Of course, in the proceedings on this Bill we are accustomed to this treatment. We had a short discussion on Second Reading, we had a very short Committee stage—amounting if I recollect correctly to eight sittings only. We had a short

Report stage and Third Reading and had to consider a mass of Amendments which were ill-digested. Now we are faced with approximately 150 Lords Amendments, including new Clauses and a new Schedule.
I want to say one kind thing to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am grateful, and I am sure my hon. Friends are, for the trouble he has taken in sending us some notes, amounting to about 300 pages, not on the Bill but on these proposed Amendments. The last of these reached me at 4.30 this afternoon. There are other difficulties; the marshalled list now before you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was only available in Scotland on Saturday. The result is that none of the persons interested in the Bill has had any opportunity whatever to make any representations about the Amendments. Not only that, but we on this side of the House have had no proper opportunity of considering these Amendments. It may well be that a number of them are merely drafting Amendments, but the mere mechanics of fitting them together and deciding if they are drafting Amendments is something which takes considerable time.
The Bill is not a simple one, and little consideration was given to it at any stage. The reasons for its complexities are twofold, as are the reasons why these numerous Amendments are necessary. The Bill arose out of the fact that the Government were determined to abolish betterment and the £300 million charge, and they did so without considering the enormous complexities which would result.
The Bill does not enunciate any general principles but attempts to deal with numerous special cases. An explanation of the form of the Bill was given at an earlier stage by the Lord Advocate, who said it was desirable to bring before the House these numerous special cases in order that the House might consider them in detail. He thought that it was better to do that than to bring in Regulations. But the House has never had an opportunity, and never will have, of considering the Bill or the numerous cases with which it is expected to deal. This is a contemptuous Parliamentary procedure.
The result is that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, can give no satisfaction to anyone. To those who have claims, or may possibly have claims, the Bill will be unintelligible. To the professional advisers of those persons who have interests, the Bill will be a constant anxiety. When the Lord Advocate returns to private practice, if and when he does, he will find that the Bill is unintelligible. It will be quite impossible, and it is now, for anyone to advise what is correct under this Bill.
I am quite sure that there is not a single person in this House, not excluding the Lord Advocate, who can truthfully say that he understands this Bill. To the courts, when cases under it ultimately come there—and they will, at great expense to the persons having an interest—the Bill will become an object of scorn. To the Scottish Office and the Lord Advocate's Department it will bring no comfort, for they will know, as the Lord Advocate knows, this Bill must be followed, in a few years, by a major amending Bill.
To the House of Commons the Bill can only bring disgrace, and in these circumstances, I cannot advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to allow these Amendments to go through.

Mr. William Ross: I do not know if we can regard it as a tribute to the keenness of our critical faculties or the quickness of our comprehension that we are asked by the Government to consider these Amendments at this time. We have only to recollect that it was on Thursday at half-past three that the business of the House was fixed and it was suggested that we should take the Lords Amendments to the Scottish Bill during the latter part of today. Presumably, I gather, somewhere around seven o'clock. It is now 20 minutes to eleven.
The point is that at the time the Leader of the House said that, those in another place were only starting the Report stage of the Bill, so at that time they did not know exactly what they were going to ask us to discuss. The fact is that there are over 150 changes to be made in a Bill that, from the start, has obviously been quite incomprehensible, even to the Lord Advocate. We are being asked to consider all these changes

to a complex Bill at this late hour tonight, despite the fact that, on the Report stage, the Secretary of State for Scotland, a man of great ability, told us that the reason why he had not taken any part in that debate was because he had had considerable difficulty in mastering all the points.
We have the position that the Government completed the Report and Third Reading of the Bill in another place late on Thursday. The full changes were not available in Scotland until Saturday, and were available generally to hon. Members only when they came into the House this afternoon. Yet the Government are asking us to consider all these changes at this time of night.
The Prime Minister said that the Government were accepting the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs, but I wonder whether the Government have read them, because one of the points made in the Royal Commission's Report was that not sufficient attention had been paid to the susceptibilities of the Scots. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) laughs. It may be a joke to him, but is it not a joke to the people of Scotland that we should be asked at this time of night to deal with so many changes.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough): rose——

Mr. Ross: We Scots have waited too long already to be further put off by things like that.
It is disgraceful that so soon after the acceptance of the Royal Commission's recommendations the Government should show that, in spirit at any rate, they have made no change at all in their attitude either to Scotland or to Scottish legislation. The fact is that we have had no time to consult anyone about these Amendments, even though we may have had time to try to understand what they actually mean, although really to understand what they mean would take considerably longer than the time that has been available to us.
I know that the Scottish Office has helped. At every successive stage of the Bill in the House of Lords there has come an absolute stream of paper from the Scottish Office to Opposition Members. The people at the Scottish Office were


evidently very anxious that we should understand the Bill. I do not know whether that was due to their anxiety that we should do so or to the fact that their conscience was troubling them about the tricks they were playing with the whole legislative set-up.
I think it is a contempt of Parliament that we should be asked to deal with this considerable number of changes so soon after the Bill has passed another place. More compensation is to be paid out under the Bill, and to ask us to deal with these Amendments so soon after the Bill has come before us and at this late hour is really a contempt of Parliamentary procedure.
I sincerely hope that the House will not readily accept the position. After all, we have other duties to perform, quite apart from the duty of understanding the Bill ourselves and approving it or otherwise. There is the point that many of our constituents and many of the bodies in our constituencies, such as the local authorities, are vitally affected by the Bill.
The House should realise that even though the Amendments were made availabale on Saturday, local authorities and town clerks in Scotland were not very willing to discuss these matters on Sunday. It is most unfair of the Government to expect reasonable discussion of these Amendments so late at night.
I do not know what is going to happen to the Bill. We have been told in another place that the Government are going to send teams of lecturers to lecture lawyers as to what the Bill means. What a farcical situation. The Bill is a nightmare of legal complexity and verbal obscurity. I ask the Government to reconsider the matter. The House should mark their objection to the procedure by dividing on the Motion.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Two points have not yet been made. This is a long and

complicated Bill of 71 Clauses and eight Schedules. It is a larger Bill than the English Bill, yet the English Bill was given three times as much time in Committee and today proceedings on the English Bill were started at 3.30 and ended about 10.30. We are now, at this late hour, asked to consider the Scottish Bill, which involves 26 pages of Lords Amendments of close print. It is a contempt of Parliament and an outrage upon our democracy to ask us to consider this long and complicated Bill at this hour of the night.

That outrage is made all the more striking by the disparity between the time given to the English Bill and that given to this Bill. I have shown that the English Bill is smaller, yet it had three times as much time in Committee and has been considered in the House today since half-past three—and it is now a quarter to eleven. Taking all that into account, it is unfair to the people of this country and an outrage upon democracy that we should now be asked to consider the Lords Amendments. It is an encouragement to those who say that Parliamentary Government has had its day and that we must have some other, and totalitarian, form of Government.

The justice of this protest is emphasised still further by the fact that when this Bill was reached at about half-past ten, the Ministers were not in their places to consider it. One Minister came in and was the sole occupant of the Front Bench. Tardily, some minutes later, came the Lord Advocate—who is an anomaly and an anachronism; he is not only the present Lord Advocate but tonight he is the late Lord Advocate.

I am sorry you were not here for the beginning of my speech, Mr. Speaker. It is for the House to judge the Government's conduct tonight. I have said that it is an outrage upon democracy and contemptuous of Parliament.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 113.

Division No. 238.]
AYES
[10.47 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney


Alport, C. J. M.
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Browne, Jack (Govan)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T


Ashton, H. (Chelmford)
Birch, Nigel
Bullard, D. G.


Baldwin, A. E.
Bishop, F. P.
Carr, Robert


Banks, Col, C.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Cary, Sir Robert


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Boyle, Sir Edward
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)




Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Kerr, H. W.
Ramsden, J. E.


Cole, Norman
Lambton, Viscount
Redmayne, M.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Leather, E. H. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lock wood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Deedes, W. F
Longden, Gilbert
Russell, R. S.


Dirty, S. Wingfield
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Doughty, C. J. A
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sharpies, Maj. R. C.


Erroll, F. J.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Soames, Capt. C.


Fell, A.
Manningham-Buller, Rt.Hn. Sir Reginald
Speir, R. M.


Finlay, Graeme
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Marples, A. E.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maud, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Studholme, H. G.


Garner-Evans, E. H
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Teeling, W


Glover, D.
Mellor, Sir John
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Gower, H. R.
Neave, Airey
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicholls, Harmar
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, H. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Heath, Edward
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wall, Major Patrick


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Osborne, C.
Wellwood, W.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Page, R. G.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Partridge, E.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Pitman, I. J.
Wills, G.


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Woollam, John Victor


Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, J. Enoch



Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kaberry, D.
Profumo, J. D.
Sir Cedric Drewe and


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.




NOES


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.


Balfour, A.
Holmes, Horace
Popplewell, E.


Bartley, P.
Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, C. R.
Hoy, J. H.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Probert, A. R.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blyton, W. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bowden, H. W.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Skeffington, A. M.


Burke, W. A.
Keenan, W.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Callaghan, L. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Champion, A. J.
Lawson, G. M
Sparks, J. A.


Clunie, J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, T.


Collick, P. H.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Delargy, H. J.
McInnes, J
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Dodds, N. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thornton, E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Manuel, A. C.
Warbey, W. N.


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
West, D. G.


Fienburgh, W.
Mikardo, Ian
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moyle, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Willey, F. T.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oswald, T.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Grimond, J.
Owen, W. J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Padley, W. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Yates, V. F.


Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Hannan, W.
Palmer, A. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayman, F. H.
Pannell, Charles
Mr. Wallace and Mr. John Taylor.


Herbison, Miss M.
Parker, J.



Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 1.—(PAYMENTS BY REFERENCE TO ESTABLISHED CLAIMS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 23, leave out from "been" to "that" in line 24 and insert:
if those provisions had at that time had effect in relation thereto.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment, designed to rectify a mistake.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Before we dispose of this Amendment, I ought to say, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, that we have no intention of filibustering or delaying the passage of the Bill, but we must intimate to the Government and the House that, in passing these Amendments, as we will, we cannot really accept any responsibility for them in the eyes of the public. We cannot be expected to do our job as an Opposition in the time allotted. We shall do our best. We do not think that sitting up all night carrying on a debate of this kind, or sitting until an hour tomorrow that would eliminate some other important debate, is the right way in which to deal with this Bill. We shall do the best we can in the time allotted, but we cannot accept any responsibility for not having dealt with the Bill in the way in which an Opposition ought.

Mr. Hoy: The Joint Under-Secretary in moving this Amendment said it was to correct a mistake. He omitted to say what that mistake was. Perhaps he would care to explain what mistake it rectifies.

11.0 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: If the hon. Member looks at the Bill, and at the Clause to which the Amendment refers, he will notice that it says
Provided that the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act …
after which it says
apart from the provisions of the said First Schedule…
What the Clause means is
if those provisions had at that time had effect in relation thereto,

and those are the words that we are putting in. This brings the First Schedule within the provisions of the Clause, whereas the existing words might well have excluded it.

Clause 2.—(CLAIM HOLDINGS, THEIR AREAS AND VALUES, AND APPORTION MENT OF VALUES BETWEEN PARTS OF AREAS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 45, leave out from "for" to end of line 47 and insert:
treating the claim holding as divided into two or more claim holdings and extinguishing any of those holdings or reducing the value thereof.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is also a drafting Amendment. The words in the Bill which it is proposed to replace are inadequate as a description of the scope of the Second and Third Schedules, and so they are proposed to be altered to bring in the Second and Third Schedules properly.

Mr. Hector Hughes: This is an important Amendment, which should not be thrown off in that casual way by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It should be more fully explained to the House, because it will seriously affect the purpose of the Bill. It is necessary to consider the Amendment in connection with the purpose and meaning of the Clause that is sought to be amended.
Clause 2 contains two subsections. It deals with claim holdings, their areas and values, and apportionment of values between parts of areas. The meaning and purpose of this is plain, but its working out is complicated, and is made still more complicated by the Amendment. The Clause does three important things. Subsection (1) relates references to a claim holding to the benefit of an established claim. Secondly, it relates reference to the area of a claim holding to the reference to the land which is the claim area. Thirdly, it relates reference to the value of a claim holding to the amount of the established claim constituting that holding. All that is clear enough, but the complications arise on subsection (2).
Subsection (2) attempts to apply the Second and Third Schedules to the aims of subsection (1)—that is, to claim holdings, areas and values and apportionment. Again, up to that point all is clear, but the complications arise on the Amendment. The complications are those which relate to the words which it is sought to leave out and the words which it is sought to insert.
As the Clause stands, it would enact that the operations which I have mentioned would
have effect for extinguishing the claim holding, or reducing the value thereof, or for dividing the claim holding
and attributing to each part a value and area. That, too, is clear, but the words which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seeks to put into the Bill cause complications.
What is the meaning of the words which the Joint Under-Secretary seeks to put into the Bill, in contradistinction to the words which he seeks to leave out? The Clause was comparatively clear as it stood before leaving the other place, but the words which it is now sought to put in make it completely opaque. It was in the shadows before. It will be in black darkness if these words are inserted. Having regard to these complications, it is the duty of the Lord Advocate—after all, this is a matter of construction—now to take his part in explaining to the House the difference between the words which are sought to be left out and the words which it is sought to put in, and how the Bill will be improved by the words which it is sought to put in.
Is it not desirable, Mr. Speaker, that when a serious argument has been put to the Lord Advocate upon a matter of law that he ought to respect you and the House by making some effort to explain the point of view?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has put a question to me, and I must answer him in so far as it is a point of order. If no other hon. Member offers to speak, I have to put the Question which has already been proposed.

Commander Galbraith: It may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand what the Amendment

purports to do. If he would be good enough to look at the Second Schedule he will see that its purpose is to cater for cases in which claims on the £300 million fund have been assigned to the Central Land Board as security for development charge. The Third Schedule makes provision for reducing claim holdings to take account of any payments which may have been made under Section 56 of the 1947 Act, in respect of the interest to which the claim holding relates. The words which we are deleting from the Clause do not properly relate to the two Schedules, and those which we are putting in are a proper interpretation of their scope. That is the reason why the Amendment is being made.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 31, leave out from first "the" to end of line 35 and insert:
amount secured by the assignation.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is another drafting Amendment. The object of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) is to ensure that any amount due by way of development charge, which was secured by an assignation of a claim, shall be fully covered as a result of any apportionment of the claim. I think that is perfectly clear.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 14, at end insert:
(5) References in this Part of this Act, other than in this section, to the value of a claim holding are references to the value of that holding immediately before the commencement of this Act.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is another drafting Amendment, the object of which is to put beyond doubt for the purposes of Part I of the Bill that the value of a claim holding is its value after the operation of the Second and Third Schedules.

Clause 3.—(PAYMENT WHERE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE INCURRED BY CLAIM HOLDER OR HIS PREDECESSOR IN TITLE (CASE A).)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 38, at end insert:
or whose interest has subsequently become merged in that interest.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is designed to remove a slight anomaly in Clause 3. As subsection (1) is drafted, the holder of a claim holding is, by virtue of paragraph (b), entitled to a payment if he is the owner of an interest in any land covered by the holding and a development charge was incurred in respect of that land by a person from whom he derives title to that interest. The normal case will be where a previous, owner paid development charge, and the present owner bought both land and claim from him. The latter would, of course, as the Clause stands, be entitled to a payment in the same way as the previous owner would have been.
There may, however, be cases where the development charge was paid by a lessee, who subsequently surrendered his lease and assigned his claim to his immediate landlord, the owner of the land. The Amendment provides that in such cases the owner will similarly be entitled to a payment under the Clause.

Mr. D. Johnston: Might I ask the Joint Under-Secretary two questions? Is the key word of this amendment "or," and if so, does it postulate two different conditions? Does the payment of a development charge entitle a person to a claim; and, secondly, does the payment of a development charge by a person whose interests subsequently become merged in the interest of a claim holding entitle that person to make a claim?
My second question is, does "subsequently" mean subsequent to the payment of a development charge, or the coming into operation of the 1947 Act?

Mr. Hector Hughes: I thought that the Joint Under-Secretary was going to respect my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Johnston) by replying to what he has just asked. I, for one, am not satisfied with the Under-Secretary's opening explanation of this Amendment, for he has left a great deal

unsaid; and, in my submission, this Amendment prejudicially affects those complicated cases known as A cases. We are seeking to amend Clause 3 (1, b) which deals with the cases where a holder is entitled to an interest in land affected by a development charge, and where there has been a devolution of title.
There may be different kinds of devolution of title, and it would seem that the Clause, as it stands, includes assignees, devisees, legatees, and lessees. If I am right, and it does includes these, then this Amendment is unnecessary. If it does not include all these classes, this Amendment is quite insufficient, because it would seem to cover only lessees and none of the other three classes which I have mentioned.
The question which I would put to the Joint Under-Secretary is, does the Clause include all four classes? What is the intention of this Amendment? Is it to envelop and include all those four classes, or is it not so intended? In the interest of those persons whose land, and whose money will be affected by this legislation—and, indeed, those unfortunate people who will have to administer this terrible Bill if ever it becomes an Act of Parliament—it is the duty of the Joint Under-Secretary to explain to the full what is meant. It is his duty to explain every scintilla, every iota, and every part of it to those who may be affected, because such people may not wish to be like the unfortunate person about whom we read in the newspapers who, because of complications arising from compulsory purchase of his land, was driven to suicide.

Commander Galbraith: The sad case to which the hon. and learned Member has just referred had nothing whatever to do with this Bill; it was concerned with the operation of an Act passed by a previous Government. The answer to the two questions which have been put to me are, in the first case "Yes"; and in the second, that the meaning is "subsequent to the development charge."

Clause 5.—(PAYMENT WHERE LAND COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED OR SOLD AT PRICE WHOLLY OR PARTLY EXCLUDING DEVELOPMENT VALUE (CASE B).)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 33, leave out
or an interest created directly out of that interest".

11.15 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Perhaps it would be convenient to consider with this Amendment the Amendments in page 11, line 1, and in page 79, line 7. This latter is once more practically a drafting Amendment. The words that are proposed to be deleted are unnecessary in view of the new subsection (1) which is proposed to be inserted in Clause 6 by the Amendment in page 11, line 1.
The Amendment in page 11, line 1, does two things. First it gives effect to a promise which was given to the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) during the Report stage, to consider whether the provisions of Clause 69 (8) could not be brought into the body of the Bill instead of being left at the tail end where they might possibly be missed. The right hon Gentleman will remember making that case.

Mr. Woodburn: Mr. Woodburn indicated assent.

Commander Galbraith: Secondly, it provides that, for the purposes of Clauses 5 and 11, the sale or purchase of an interest in land by way of feu is to be treated as a sale or purchase of the seller's whole interest in the land, thus enabling a sale by way of feu to qualify the seller for a Case B payment, or a residual payment in a case analogous to Case B, in like manner as a sale of the seller's whole interest in the land to which the claim holding related. These are the purposes of this series of three Amendments.

Mr. Cyril Bence: As clear as mud.

Mr. Woodburn: I should like to express my thanks to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for making this change. This question of feu is of very great importance to Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was very concerned, as we all were, that there should be no doubt in the minds of people throughout the country that those who had feued land, as we mostly do in Scotland, were to be covered by the Bill, and would be entitled to all the benefits that this Bill confers in making restitution to those who have suffered by way of development charge

through the feu to the person who sold the land at an exorbitant price.

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 25, leave out "first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight" and insert "said thirteenth day of August."

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Perhaps it would be convenient to consider together this and the next Amendment, in line 29, which is consequential. These Amendments give effect to an undertaking which was given in another place to consider altering the date—the date is 1st July, 1948, in Clause 5 (3, b)—to the date of the Royal Assent to the Scottish Town and Country Planning Act, 1947—that was 13th August, 1947. We are making that change in the light of information which was given in another place of possible cases in Scotland where the date of the contract of sale was prior to 1st July, 1948.
Had it been realised that there could possibly have been cases prior to 1st July, 1948, this date would have been in the original Bill. It was not known that there could be any case, but in fact during proceedings in another place certain matters were brought to light, and the alteration was made as a result of that.

Mr. D. Johnston: I take it that the Amendment will possibly result in the expenditure of public funds. Has any estimate been made of what the Amendment will cost?

Commander Galbraith: I said that we had not been aware that there were any cases and now at least one case has been called to our attention. Therefore, expenditure must be very small.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 9, line 29, leave out "said first day of July" and insert:
first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight.

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 26, at end, insert:
(7) Where an interest in land is the subject of a compulsory acquisition or sale such as is


mentioned in subsection (3) of this section and—

(a) on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, but before the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale, another interest had become merged with that interest; and
(b) the person entitled to the interest compulsorily acquired or sold was at the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale entitled to a claim holding or claim holdings which related to either or each of the merged interests,
this section shall apply as if those interests had not merged but had been separately acquired from or sold by the person entitled to the interest acquired or sold; and the compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition or, as the case may be, the sale price shall be treated as apportioned between those interests accordingly:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the operation of the proviso to subsection (4) of the next following section.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It might be for the convenience of the House if the Amendment were considered with the Amendment in page 13, line 21, to insert words after "related", the Amendment in page 15, line 14, to leave out certain words after "related" and the Amendment in page 17, line 21, to insert words at the end.
This is a group of Amendments designed to allow for the possibility of a merger of interests having taken place between 1st July, 1948—the date by reference to which claims on the £300 million fund were made—and the date of the transaction in respect of which payments should be made. Entitlement to payment under Clause 5 depends on the owner of a claim holding having sold the interest in the land to which the holding related for a consideration wholly or partly excluding development value.
This essential condition cannot be satisfied where two interests existed on the appointed day but had merged prior to the transaction—for example as the result of the surrender of a lease—because the claim holding or holdings will relate to the interests which existed on the appointed day. In addition, the formula in subsection (4) for calculating the amount payable will not function properly. The Amendment seeks to overcome these difficulties by providing, in effect, that for the purpose

of the Clause the two interests shall be assumed to have continued to exist separately, and to have been separately sold at the time of the actual sale.

Mr. Woodburn: May I raise a point of order? In a Bill coming from another place Privilege Clauses are printed in italics. You, Mr. Speaker, are good enough to tell us which of these Amendments are Privilege Amendments, but would it not be for the convenience of the House if they were printed in italics?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is possible, because the judge of Privilege is this House. It is only after scrutiny by myself and the Clerks that I can tell which Amendments are Privilege Amendments and which are not.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The Amendment deals with an eventuality or a phenomenon which presumably was not foreseen by the Government at the time when the Bill was drafted. It is astonishing that the Government should not have foreseen that eventually they would have to deal with cases of merger. The Amendment is introduced to deal with cases of merger, and I submit that it is foreign to the whole purpose of the Clause to which it is to be applied.
The proposed new subsection makes an important difference to Clause 5. I must respectfully say that the reasons adduced in its favour by the Joint Under-Secretary are not at all persuasive. We were dealing with Case A. Clause 5 deals with what is called Case B. It is an elaborate Clause, already containing nine subsections, and now the Amendment proposes the addition of another subsection which I submit is absolutely foreign to the Clause.
Clause 5 deals with payment where land is compulsorily acquired, or sold at a price which wholly or partly excludes development value. It attempts to cover the case where the owner of a claim holding has sold his interest in the land to which that holding related. This new subsection seeks to deal with a possible merger of two interests in certain cases. How does it propose to deal with them? In my submission, in an improper way.
It proposes to deal with them by importing two legal fictions; first, that they have not merged at all when in fact they have merged; and, second, that, not having merged, they have been sold


separately when in fact they have been sold not separately but as a unit, after a merger. It must be evident, even to people who are not acquainted with the technicalities of these matters, that that is not the right way to legislate. If the Legislature is to resort to legal fictions in order to bring about what it desires it is, in my submission, doing an improper thing.
I think that the Government are doing an improper thing in seeking to have their way in Clause 5 by importing into it, not one legal fiction, but two, instead of putting forward a straightforward subsection. They should not import legal fictions into legislation. I hope that the House will reject this Amendment as a quite improper one.

Mr. George Lawson: The immediate difficulty about the Bill is that it seeks to deal with a whole variety of divisions and sub-divisions which have occurred. Claim holdings have been divided, further divided and sub-divided. In this Amendment we have an attempt to deal with the opposite process. On the one hand, there is the process of division, and here we have the process of merging.
I was rather surprised that a Bill so preoccupied with the process of divison and making allowances for a wonderful and varied history of claims should have omitted to have dealt with the simple question of claims merging. That this opposite side of the process should have been overlooked in the drafting and not discovered until recently indicates a queer laxity in handling the matter and illustrates forcefully and clearly how slipshod the whole business has been.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I should be obliged if the Minister would tell us how this Amendment relates to the subsequent Amendment proposed in page 50, line 33; at end insert:
Provided that where the same person is entitled to such compensation as aforesaid in respect of more than one relevant holding, or in respect of more than one interest, or in respect both of more than one relevant holding and of more than one interest, the aggregate principal amount payable to that person by way of such compensation in respect of all interests in respect of which he is so entitled in so far as they subsisted in the same land shall not exceed whichever is the less of the following amounts, that is to say—


(i) the aggregate of the amounts by which the value of each respectively of those interests in so far as it subsisted in that land was depreciated by the decision or order; or
(ii) the aggregate of the fractions of the respective values of all relevant holdings of which that person is the holder which attached to that land.
I understand that the present Amendment is to assume that two interests which have subsequently merged shall continue to exist separately. If we work on that assumption, we find that the later Amendment is expressly designed to prevent any abuse arising through two separate interests making two separate claims in respect of the same subject. I wonder whether that latter Amendment does not cancel out this one?

Commander Galbraith: I do not think the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) can contend that there is anything improper about this Amendment, or that it makes the Clause more difficult to understand. Surely it is quite a simple thing to take the claims as existing and deal with them separately. At any rate, so I informed the House in introducing the Amendment. Payment under the claim depends on the owner of the claim holding having sold the interest in the land to which the holding related for a consideration wholly or partly excluded from development value. That is an essential condition, and it cannot be satisfied where two interests existed on the appointed day, but merged prior to the transaction.
11.30 p.m.
The answer to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) is "Yes." The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) seemed to find a connection between this Amendment and an Amendment on page 50, line 33. That was not one of the Amendments which I said related to this Amendment, and I should prefer to deal with that Amendment when we reach it.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 6.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMPULSORY ACQUISI TIONS AND TO SALES.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 11, line 1, at beginning insert:
(1) In this Act any reference to the sale or purchase of an interest in land includes a


reference to the sale or purchase of such an interest by way of feu; and in relation to any such sale or purchase—

(a) the price shall be taken for the purposes of this Act to be the capital value of the feu-duty, or, as the case may be, the aggregate consideration represented by the grassum and the capital value of the feu-duty; and
(b) the last preceding section and sections eleven and forty-five of this Act shall have effect as if the interest sold were identical with the seller's whole interest in the land immediately before the sale.—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 26, at end insert:
and, so far as required for the purposes of that Part, for the purposes of the Third Schedule to the principal Act,

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment. Restricted value in Part V of the 1947 Act involves the application of the Third Schedule of that Act. It is desired to put beyond doubt the substitution, for the purpose of the present provision, of the date of sale for the appointed day is effective in that Schedule.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 16, after "forty-eight" insert:
and at the date of the sale the development specified in the certificate had not been completed

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It may be convenient if we discuss this Amendment together with the following Amendment in line 23. These are little more than drafting Amendments. The definition of "restricted value" in subsection (2) provides the basis on which the payment made in respect of a private sale is to be assessed. Anything already received over and above the restricted value is, under Clause 5 (4, b) to be deducted from the value of the claim holding in arriving at the sum payable.
The purpose of the proviso to subsection (2) is to adapt these provisions to cases where part or the whole of the land sold was the subject of a certificate issued by the Secretary of State under Section 77 of the 1947 Act certifying it

as "dead-ripe" land. The principal effect of such a certificate was that the development specified in it should be catried out free of development charge, and the corresponding development value was excluded from any claim on the £300 million fund. This development charge exemption was something for which the owner would quite properly have been paid by the purchaser, and it is, therefore, necessary to add the value of the exemption to the rectricted value in order to arrive at the amount of the payment properly due.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 12, line 23, leave out from "of" to "if" in line 25 and insert:
so much of that development as had not been completed if it had been completed and." [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 10, at end insert:
Provided that where the whole or part of any liability or prospective liability which was or, as the case may be, would have been taken into account in calculating that restricted value had ceased to exist before the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale, the Board, or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part, as may appear to them appropriate, any reduction otherwise falling to be made under this subsection.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It might be to the convenience of the House if we discussed this Amendment with the Amendment in page 14, line 3. This Amendment is somewhat technical in character, but I do not think that the House will disagree with its object.
Subsection (4) is concerned with cases where the restricted value of land, as found under Part V of the 1947 Act, was a minus quantity A minus restricted value would result whenever the value of the land restricted to its existing use was less than the capitalised feu duty or other charge to which it was subject. Thus an acre of land might have been feued for building at £50 per annum. Restricted to agriculture, that land might be worth only £5 per annum, in which case the feuar's interest would, on the restricted basis, be a liability of £45 per annum. Capitalised, that would give a minus restricted value of, say, £900.
One result of the acquisition of the feuar's interest was that he was freed from any further liability to pay the feu duty. That being so, he ought not to receive any part of his Part V claim which resulted from the minus restricted value, because that minus value arose out of his liability for the feu duty. The subsection, therefore, provides for the amount of the minus to be subtracted from the claim.

Mr. D. Johnston: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has told the House why the Amendment is necessary, but he has not said what it does. I have difficulty in understanding why, when the liability which causes the minus valuation is removed, the payment or the value which the holder of the claim may receive depends on a waiver by the Board and upon the board making such apportionment as it thinks proper. Indeed, it depends upon the board thinking it just and proper to make a waiver.
Why is it, if the liability which results in the minus valuation is removed, that the holder should not receive the compensation which he would have received had this liability not existed at the time when the claim was considered? Why should it depend upon equitable considerations, which, apparently, can only be considered by the board? That is the first question.
Secondly, what is envisaged by the words "just and proper"? What is thought to be "just" and what is thought to be "proper"? Does it depend upon timing when the liability is removed, or does it depend upon the manner in which the liability is removed, or what considerations have the Government in mind when they introduce these words and instruct the board or the Lands Tribunal to determine whether or not the minus quality of a claim may be changed in accordance with its interpretation of these words?
It is a very difficult subject, and I should be most grateful if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or the Lord Advocate would explain in what circumstances it is envisaged that this provision will operate, why it is phrased in these terms, and why it is made subject to

equitable considerations and not to legal rights.

Commander Galbraith: If I may have permission to reply, the answer to the hon. and learned Member's first point is this: that the provision will not function fairly where the liability which gave rise to the minus restricted value had disappeared, in whole or in part, before the acquisition of the land. For example, the feuar may have redeemed the feu duty. The Amendment proposes to meet this possibility by giving the Central Land Board—and the Lands Tribunal—power to waive the reduction provided for in the subsection, as far as appropriate. Cases are not likely to be many and the circumstances may vary widely; and it is, therefore, necessary that there should be a discretion. That is the most economical solution.
I was asked what was envisaged as being "just and proper." As I have said, the circumstances here are likely to vary greatly. It is not right that the man should not receive any part of the Part V claim which resulted from a minus restricted value because that minus value arose out of his liability to his feu duty. That is what those bodies have to consider—the justice and reasonableness of the case submitted to their discretion.

Mr. Woodburn: What is the legal meaning of "just and proper," about which there is some doubt? Is there a distinction between "just" and "proper"? What will this cost?

Commander Galbraith: If I may have permission to reply, I have said that the cases are likely to be very few indeed and, therefore, the cost cannot be very great.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Could we have "unjust and proper" and "just and improper"? Can we be told the meaning of the words "just and proper"? Will the Lord Advocate tell us?

The Lord Advocate: I should have thought it was possible to be unjust and proper or just and improper. The two words mean different things. The question of justice is a question of what is fair. The question of whether it is proper raises a matter of propriety, of appropriateness. The two words are not


exactly the same. The intention is to cover a general discretion in order to secure a fair result.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 7.—(PAYMENT WHERE LAND DISPOSED OF BY GIFT (CASE C).)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 20, leave out "entitled in the same capacity" and insert "beneficially entitled."

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is another drafting Amendment. The words "in the same capacity" might be misleading and it seems better to make it clear from the start that the applicant for payment must have been beneficially entitled at the time both to the claim holding and to the related interest in the land.

Mr. Hector Hughes: This is much more than a drafting Amendment, for it makes an important change in the meaning of the Clause, which relates to Class C cases, and I will show what that change is. The Clause as it stands deals with the holder of a claim holding who, to be within its scope, must have his true interests, in the words sought to be left out, "in the same capacity"—that is to say, his true interests to the claim holding and to the land. That means that he must have them in the same capacity, either both as a beneficial interest or both as a trustee; certainly not one as trustee and the other as a beneficial interest.
It is possible that he would be interested in one as beneficial owner and in the other as trustee, but so long as the words now sought to be omitted were left in, they entitled him to both as trustee or as beneficial owner. He could not own one as trustee and the other as beneficial owner. The words now sought to be put in would change all that. If the Amendment passes, he must hold both beneficially and neither as trustee.
11.45 p.m.
These words sought to be left out are much higher in connotation than the words sought to be put in. Why did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that this was merely a drafting Amendment when, in fact, it radically changes

the meaning of the Clause? What is the intention of the Government? On which foot do they intend to stand? On the words sought to be left out or those sought to be put in? The Minister should explain this Amendment further.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 13, line 21, after "related" insert:
or another interest in which that interest had merged.

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 3, at end insert:
Provided that where the whole or part of any liability or prospective liability which was or, as the case may be, would have been taken into account in calculating that restricted value had ceased to exist before the date on which the gift in question was made, the Board or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part, as may appear to them appropriate, any reduction otherwise falling to be made under this subsection.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Commander Galbraith.]

Mr. D. Johnston: The substance of this Amendment was dealt with earlier, but I understand that the Amendment cannot operate unless the date is known on which the gift was made. What is that date? Is it the date of the missives creating the gift, the date of the disposition, the date of the registration of the disposition, or the date of entry on the land?

Commander Galbraith: It is the date of the missives.

Clause 10.—(PAYMENTS IN CASES ANALOGOUS TO CASE B.)

Lords Amendments agreed to:

In page 15, line 14, leave out from "related" to "was" in line 15 and insert:
or another interest in which that interest had merged.

In line 21, after "if" insert:
the interest so affected, in this section referred to as.

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 39, after "affected" insert:
being damage in respect of which compensation fell, or if the sale had been a compulsory acquisition would have fallen, to be assessed


in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the principal Act (which provides for compensation on the basis of existing use value) as applied by subsection (4) of section one hundred and thirteen of that Act;

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It might be convenient for the House to consider with this Amendment the related Amendments in page 15, line 43, and in page 16, leave out lines 13 to 35 in order to insert new paragraphs. This Amendment, and the other two I have mentioned are of a drafting character. Their object is to arrange the Clause on a logical basis.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 15, line 43, at end insert:
being damage in respect of which compensation fell to be assessed in accordance with section two of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, as modified by section ten of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1948 (which limits the compensation to an amount calculated on the basis of existing use value).

In page 16, leave out lines 13 to 35 and insert:
(c) in the case of a compulsory acquisition falling within paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection or in a case falling within paragraph (d) of that subsection, to the compensation paid or payable in respect of the damage referred to in that paragraph;
(d) in the case of a sale falling within paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection, to the sale price in so far as it represented compensation in respect of the damage referred to in that paragraph.

In line 38, leave out "relevant interest" and insert:
Interest in land to which the claim holding related.

In page 17, line 10, leave out "subsections (4) to (6)" and insert "subsection (4)."

Clause 11.—(RESIDUAL PAYMENTS IN CASES ANALOGOUS TO CASES A AND B.)

In page 17, line 21, at end insert:
or another interest in which that interest had merged."—[Special Entry.]

Clause 12.—(PAYMENTS NOT TO EXCEED VALUE OF CLAIM HOLDINGS.)

In page 19, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of Clause 12 and insert:
the authority determining the amount of any such payment shall apportion that amount between the different parts of the area of the

claim holding in such manner as appears to that authority proper, and if the aggregate of the portions of the principal amounts of the respective payments so apportioned to any part of the area of the claim holding would, apart from the provisions of this subsection, exceed the fraction of the value of the claim holding attaching to that part of the area thereof, those portions shall be reduced rate-ably so that the aggregate of them is equal to the said fraction, and the said principal amounts shall be treated as reduced accordingly.
(2) Where two or more payments are (subject as aforesaid) payable in respect of the same claim holding by virtue of the last preceding section, the aggregate of the principal amounts of those payments shall not exceed the value of the claim holding or, where that value is treated as reduced in accordance with subsection (6) of the last preceding section, that value as so reduced."—[Special Entry.]

Clause 13.—(APPLICATIONS FOR PAYMENTS UNDER PART I.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 1, leave out from "Board" to end of line 14, and insert:
on determining any such application, to give notice of their determination to the applicant, and, if their determination includes an apportionment, to give particulars of the apportionment to any other person entitled to an interest in land which it appears to the Board will be substantially affected by the apportionment.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment brings the provisions of Clause 13 (2) into line with the similar provisions of Clause 28 (1), that is it cuts out an unnecessary step in procedure.

Mr. Hoy: A noble friend in another place appeared to think that the deletion of the words specified in the Amendment meant that there would be no provision enabling persons affected to make representations to the board in respect of their apportionment. The Lord Chancellor, replying, said:
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will look into it, and if I find any difficulty I will inform your Lordships of it at a later stage.
Apparently this will be the last stage for this House, and I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if the Lord Chancellor found any difficulty, and if that could be explained to the House.

Commander Galbraith: No, the Lord Chancellor did not find any difficulty. At present, Clause 13 (2) contains an additional requirement under which the


Central Land Board has to give notice to all concerned of any proposed apportionment. It has been found that this additional requirement might delay the settlement of claims for payment considerably, as well as being unnecessary. In practice, the assessment of what is payable will be carried out in negotiations with those concerned.
If the present Clause 13 (2, c) were preserved it would be necessary to serve a fresh series of notices whenever it was proposed to vary an opportionment in deference to representations made by parties. All concerned will be able at a subsequent stage to dispute the apportionment before the Lands Tribunal, if dissatisfied. It is accordingly thought that the additional step of giving a proposed apportionment would be better dispensed with.

Clause 15.—(EFFECT OF PAYMENTS ON CLAIM HOLDINGS.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 21, line 44, leave out from "holding" to "the" in line 45.

In page 22, line 1, leave out from "payment" to "is" in line 2.

In line 6, at end insert:
Provided that if in the case of any claim holding a payment becomes payable under Case D, then, regardless of the amount of that payment, that holding shall for the purposes of the following Parts of this Act be deemed to have been extinguished immediately before the commencement of this Act.

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 12, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert:
(3) Where one or more acts or events have occurred whereby in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act one or more payments become payable in respect of a claim holding (in this section referred to as 'the parent holding') and any such act or event did not extend to the whole of the area of the parent holding, then, both for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this section and for the purposes of the following Parts of this Act—

(a) the parent holding shall be treated as having been divided immediately before the commencement of this Act into as many separate claim holdings, with such areas, as may be necessary to ensure that, in the case of each holding, either any such act or event as aforesaid extending to the area of that holding extended to the whole thereof, or no such act or event extended to the area of that holding;

(b) the value of each of the separate holdings respectively shall be taken to be that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to the part of the area of the parent holding constituting the area of the separate holding;
(c) the authority determining the amount of any such payment shall apportion that amount between the areas of the separate claim holdings to which the act or event in question extended in such manner as may appear to that authority proper, and the portion of that amount apportioned to the area of any separate claim holding shall be taken to be a payment payable under this Part of this Act in respect of that claim holding.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is little more than a drafting Amendment. The purpose of subsections (3) and (4) of the Clause is to ensure that where a payment is made in respect of a claim holding in respect of an act or event affecting only part of the area of that holding, it shall be debited against the fraction of the value of the holding appropriate to that part. That is to say, if a claim holding relates to two plots, and a development charge has been paid for building on one plot, with the result that a payment is made under Clause 3 of the Bill, that payment ought, obviously, to be debited against that part of the claim holding appropriate to the land developed, and not against the claim holding as a whole. This is achieved by dividing the holding into two holdings, one relating to the land developed and the other to the remainder, and debiting the payment against the former.

Clause 16.—(SCOPE OF PART II.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 18, at end insert:
(3) Where, on an application for planning permission for the carrying out of new development of land to which this section applies, a planning decision is made after the commencement of this Act whereby that permission is granted (whether unconditionally or not) and the Secretary of State certifies that he is satisfied that particular buildings or works to which the application related were only included therein because the applicant had reason to believe that permission for the other development to which the application related would not have been granted except subject to a condition requiring the erection or construction of those buildings or works, then, for the purposes of this Part of this Act—

(a) the application shall be deemed to have included, in place of those buildings


or works, such other development of the land on which the buildings or works were to be erected or constructed as might reasonably have been expected to have been included having regard to the other development to which the application related; and
(b) the permission shall be deemed to have been granted for the other development to which the application related subject to the condition aforesaid.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. L. Clyde): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, although long, has a quite simple purpose. It is possible that in some cases an intending developer, having ascertained that permission to build would not be granted unless a service road was provided, might include the service road in his application for planning permission. As the Bill stands, no compensation would be payable in those cases because provision of the road was not required by a condition attached to the planning permission. The effect of the Amendment is that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the service road was included in the application in anticipation of the local planning authority's requirements, compensation would be payable in the same way as if it had been required by a condition attached to the planning permission.

Mr. Woodburn: It would be interesting to know what the Amendment will cost. Why are all these words required simply to say that a claim may be admitted if the Secretary of State so thinks fit? To put in this great number of words must complicate anybody's judgment in reading the Bill, whereas all that needs to be said is that in the case of a service road, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a claim ought to be admitted, he may authorise the claim to be paid. This would cut out a great deal of the wordiness involved in putting service roads in the Bill, taking them out, and then making Amendments to exempt them again.
The Bill has been made unnecessarily complicated. I wish that the Government had taken powers to make regulations covering a lot of these matters. They have made their work even more complicated than it need be. Am I to understand that the payment of a claim in

the case of a service road is simply a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State, and that this is all the Amendment amounts to?

The Lord Advocate: That is not quite all; it is a little more involved than that. Had that been all that the Amendment amounted to, it would have been easy to draft it in far fewer words. I attempted to describe exactly the ambit of this additional provision. I do not want to repeat it all, but the substance is that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the service road was included in the application in anticipation of the local planning authority's requirements, compensation is to be payable in the same way as if that service road had been required by a condition attached to the planning permission. It is a little more involved and qualified than the right hon. Gentleman imagined.

12 midnight.

Mr. Woodburn: This is asking the Secretary of State to be something of a mind reader. In other words, he has got to psycho-analyse this man who put in the application, and——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The right hon. Gentleman, under the guise of asking a question, is making a second speech.

Mr. Woodburn: Is this a case of having to be a mind reader, of psycho-analysing a contractor before he puts in his application?

The Lord Advocate: We do not anticipate that that will be necessary. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied from the information put before him, and only when he is satisfied does the additional provision come into effect.

Miss Margaret Herbison: This Amendment is not quite as simple as the Lord Advocate would wish us to believe. As far as I understand it, it does not have any retrospective value. It applies to someone who in the future is going to develop a piece of land. It applies not only to a service road—that was only an example that was given—but might apply to all sorts of things, and my right hon. Friend was perfectly correct when he said that either the developer was going to act as a


thought reader, or the Secretary of State would be expected to act in that capacity.
I wonder if I have got it right. A developer wishes to develop a piece of land. He sends in his plans to the planning authority, and in those plans he has made allowance for provisions which he might not think are necessary. He imagines if he does not have these extra provisions the local authority will not give him planning permission. Surely, since this provision is not retrospective, it would be much more sensible legislation for the developer in the first place to send in his plans of what he actually wants to do in the area he desires to develop, and if these plans are turned down by the planning authority it can give him reasons why it turned them down.
In other words, it would say, "We will only allow you planning development here if you build a certain service road" or "We will only allow you certain development planning here if you carry out certain other provisions." That seems to me the sensible way to proceed, and if that were carried into effect neither the developer nor the Secretary of State would be put in the position of being a mind reader or a thought reader. The Secretary of State will be put into a very invidious position. He has to decide whether this service road or whatever other provision it is would have been asked for by the local authority.
If the Secretary of States takes the decision that, of necessity, the planning authority would have demanded that, the planning authority, on the other hand, could say, "We certainly would not have demanded all this provision," and the Secretary of State would have to arbitrate between the developer and the planning authority. It seems to me that the Bill would have been far better left as it was, to have allowed refusal in the first place; and then the planning authority would have stated quite clearly why it refused and what other provisions it would accept in the plan. I feel that this is not an Amendment that we should accept, for it is an Amendment which not only makes this Bill more complicated but in part makes it foolish.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 23, line 30, after "1932)," insert:
or by virtue of any regulations made under paragraph 13 of the said Schedule (which relates to certain applications under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935)

Clause 19.—(RIGHT TO COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF PLANNING DECISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 9, after "powers" insert:
not being statutory undertakers or the National Coal Board

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of this Amendment is to exclude statutory undertakers and the National Coal Board from the operation of subsection (2) of this clause, and to leave their position in the matter of compensation to be determined solely by the operation of subsection (4); that is, by provisions relating to the status of the land concerned.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 27, line 4, leave out from "shall" to end of line 6, and insert:
be without prejudice to the operation of any regulations made under section (Provision for diversion of payments) of this Act" [Special Entry.]

In page 28, transpose Clause 20 to after Clause 27.

Clause 21.—(COMPENSATION EXCLUDED IN CERTAIN CASES.)

In page 28, line 18, leave out from "which" to second "or" in line 19, and insert:
consists of or includes the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land,

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 12, leave out "ten" and insert "seven."

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is proposed in pursuance of an undertaking which was given in another place. It seeks to cut down the period during which an owner is prevented from building without compensation from ten to seven years. It is intended to deal with a relatively small number of cases in which it is thought that the land, although suitable for


development, should not be developed in the light of development plans or the availability—or, perhaps I should say the non-availability—of certain services. The Amendment seeks to defer development in such cases. It is not thought that there will be many cases of this kind, particularly in Scotland, but this undertaking was given.

Mr. James McInnes: I imagine that this reduction from ten to seven years is not only going to cause an embarrassing situation for local authorities, but may well lead to a serious situation. Many of the development plans submitted by local authorities indicate certain priorities; indeed, the Minister is aware that the Glasgow plan envisages a period covering not seven, or even 10 years, but 50 years; and in such circumstances, what is the position of the local authority?
Let us assume that there is an applicant with a typical application, who comes along with an established claim and who wants to develop an area. But, that area happens to be one which will not be developed for the next 20 years by the local authority. Under the suggested Amendment, compensation can only be excluded up to a seven-year period. What is then the position of the local authority? Can it refuse, after reviewing the situation, to permit development, or must it allow it to proceed at the expiration of the seven years?
Surely it was quite legitimate, prior to the appearance of this Amendment, for a local planning authority to say to an applicant that it would be at least 10 years before it could give any clear indication as to the lay out of a specific area? We cannot tell, even at this stage, what the road patterns are going to be, or where the other services are going to be provided, such as water and sewerage. We are not in a position even to say at this stage whether or not the proposed developer's form of construction will fit into the general amenity of the area.
It seems to me that if we are going to limit the exclusion of compensation to a period of seven years, we are not going to engage in planning at all. We are just going to have a form of sporadic development. I should like the Minister to indicate to us clearly how the local authorities stand under the proposed

Amendment. Are they to be tied definitely to seven years, and thereafter must they allow development to take place, or will they be given power to indicate to the intending applicant that the situation has been reviewed but that development cannot be allowed for another three, four or five years, to meet local circumstances? Perhaps the Minister would clarify the position.

The Lord Advocate: The position is as the hon. Gentleman says. The reason the Amendment has been put down is that it is unreasonable to say to an intending purchaser that he should wait indefinitely. If—and this is the point that the hon. Gentleman was really making—the local planning authority refuses permission to develop after the seven years, then compensation is paid by the Exchequer, not by the planning authority.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 23.—(MEASURE OF DEPRECIATION FOR ASSESSING COMPENSATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 15, after "land" insert:
or of an interest in so far as it subsists in particular land.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Perhaps it would be convenient to consider, with this Amendment, the Amendments in page 30, lines 17, 20, 26 and 36, and in page 31, line 13.
The reasons for moving these Amendments are twofold. They all hang together. The first is that Clause 23 (3) does not enable account to be taken, in assessing the depreciation caused by a planning decision, of any previous order revoking or modifying planning permission which has given rise to the payment of compensation for depreciation. That omission has to be made good, and this series of Amendments does that. That is the first reason for them.
The second reason is that Clause 24 (3) as it stands is not complete because it fails to make clear that what is relevant for the purposes of Part II of the Bill is only the value of the interest so far as it subsists in any land to which the decision relates which has an unexpended balance of established development value. That defect is made good by this series of Amendments.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 30, line 17, leave Out "and the next following."
In line 20, leave out from "arises" to end of line 25.
In line 26, leave out "of the interest" and insert "in question."
Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 30, leave out from "decision" to end of line 32 and insert:
by any grant of planning permission made after that decision and in force immediately before the Secretary of State gives notice of his determination of the claim for compensation in respect of that decision, and by any undertaking to grant planning permission so in force; and
(c) on the assumption that, after the relevant decision and apart from any such permission or undertaking as aforesaid, planning permission would be granted for development of any class specified in the Third Schedule to the principal Act but not for any other development,

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[The Lord Advocate.]

12.15 a.m.

Mr. D. Johnston: I was hoping that the Lord Advocate would explain the Amendment, because it was not one of those covered by his previous explanation. As a result of the Amendment and one which we have just passed, Clause 23 (2, b) will read:
Subject to the next following subsection, the value in question shall be taken to be depreciated if, and to the extent to which, that value, calculated—

(a) as at the time of the relevant decision, but
(b) as affected by that decision …"
then one comes to the Amendment.
The Amendment starts with a comma, and reads:
, by any grant of planning permission … and by any undertaking to grant planning permission so in force; …
Am I right in thinking that there is understood to be an "and" between "decision", which is the last word of Clause 23 (2, b) as it stands, and", by any grant …", then another "and" and finally "by any other undertaking"?
If one "and" is understood and the other is specific, as in the Amendment, the relevant decision requires to be qualified by three matters. They are:
… as affected by the decision …

and
… by any grant of planning permission …
and
… by any undertaking …
If that is right, is that "and" disjunctive or conjunctive? My own view is that it is disjunctive and that only one of the conditions postulated has to be satisfied and not the three conditions, which would require the "and" to be conjunctive.

Commander Galbraith: The answer is that "and" is disjunctive and that there are three separate factors.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 30, line 36, leave out from "Part" to end of line 40 and insert:
or Part V of this Act, or compensation for depreciation within the meaning of subsection (3) of section forty of this Act, has become, or becomes, payable in respect of another planning decision or in respect of an order to which the said section forty applies, being a planning decision or order made before the relevant decision in respect of, or of land which includes, the whole or part of the land to which the relevant decision relates, the calculation called for by the last preceding subsection shall be made on the assumption that that other planning decision was a decision to the contrary effect or, as the case may be, that that order was not made.

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 4, leave out from "refused" to end of line 5.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
With this Amendment might be taken the Amendment in page 31, line 10. The words proposed to be left out are entirely unnecessary.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 31, line 8, after "permission" insert "applied for".

In line 10, leave out from "twenty-one" to end of line 12.

Transpose Clause 23 to after Clause 27.

Clause 24.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CALCULATION OF DEPRECATION.)

In page 31, line 13, leave out Clause 24.

Clause 26.—(REVIEW OF PLANNING DECISIONS WHERE COMPENSATION CLAIMED.)

In page 33, line 24, after "permission" insert "applied for."

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 25, at end insert:
(5) In giving any direction under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard—
(a) to the provisions of the development plan for the area in which the land in question is situated, or
(b) where a development plan has not by that time become operative with respect to that area, to any direction which he may have given to the local planning authority as to the provisions to be included in such a plan and to any other provisions which in his opinion will be required to be so included for securing the proper planning of that area,
so far as those provisions are material to the development of that land, and shall also have regard to the local circumstances affecting the proposed development, including the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land, and to any other material considerations.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given during the Report stage. Its purpose is to ensure that the Secretary of State, in considering whether or not to give directions amending the planning decision of a local planning authority, or granting, or giving an undertaking to grant, planning permission for some other development of the land to which the application relates, shall have regard to the various matters referred to in the Amendment as a background for any decision he takes under the Clause.

Mr. Lawson: My concern here is that the Secretary of State is so hedged around with restrictions and qualifications that he might find it very much to his interest to apply the latter part, which takes into account contiguous use, and make it awkward for the people who wish to go ahead with a plan. The Secretary of State would have a financial interest as, if he permits development, there is no call for payment of compensation. If, on the other hand, he refuses development, compensation is to be paid. He is so hedged around with restrictions that he might have too much of an inducement to permit development and so avoid having to pay compensation. Can we be

assured that the latter part of the Amendment is not likely to outweigh paragraph (a) and (b)?

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: Since the undertaking was given to me and my hon. Friends, I should feel churlish if I did not express thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which this Amendment was introduced. I do not think the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) need feel disquiet about it. The purpose is quite clear. If the Secretary of State gives permission for an alternative type of development, it should be such as would accord with the development plan, if there is one, or with the kind of proposals which would be in the development plan were such a plan operative.

The Lord Advocate: There is no intention whatever of one of these considerations, particularly the latter ones, outweighing the others. They are all matters which the Minister must take into account and he is directed to have regard to them.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 27.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO REVIEW OF PLANNING DECISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In line 27, leave out from "shall" to "to" in line 31 and insert:
give notice in writing of his proposed direction to the local planning authority to whose decision that direction relates and to any person who made, and has not since withdrawn, a claim in respect of that decision, and, if so required by that authority or by any such person, shall afford to each of them an opportunity.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment was put down to meet a point made in another place. The complaint was that the Clause, as it stands, made no provision for informing those concerned of their right to be heard. It was always intended, as a matter of administration that they should be made aware of their rights, but, in view of the criticism, we have put that provision specifically into the Clause.

Clause 30.—(RECORDING OF NOTICES RELATING TO COMPENSATION.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 35, line 31, leave out "is" and insert "has become."

Clause 32.—(APPLICATION OF PART III.)

Lords Amendment: In page 38, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 39 and insert:
'the relevant interest' means the interest acquired;
'the relevant land' means the land in which the relevant interest subsists;
'the notice to treat' means the notice to treat in pursuance of which the relevant interest is acquired;

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is really a drafting Amendment which redefines certain terms and deletes others which are unnecessary, or are inserted in a later part of the Bill where they are more appropriate.

Lords Amendment: In page 39, line 17, after "means" insert:
any interest in the relevant land—
(a) which could not be the subject of a compulsory acquisition, or
(b) which is"

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the provisions of Part III of the Bill and in particular Clause 33, do not affect any interests, such as that of a superior, which are not interests that may be acquired compulsorily by the ordinary process of serving notice to treat.

Lords Amendment: In line 22, leave out subsection (3).

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment. Subsection (3) is superfluous.

Clause 33.—(COMPENSATION TO INCLUDE UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT VALUE.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 39, line 32, leave out "the relevant land, taken as a whole" and insert:
any of the relevant land,
Lords Amendment: In line 35, leave out from "to" to end of line 46 on page 40 and insert:
section thirty-five of this Act, there shall be added to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section—

(a) where the relevant interest is the only interest (other than excepted interests) subsisting at that time in any of the relevant land which has such a balance—

(i) if the restricted value of the relevant interest is a minus quantity, an amount equal to so much, if any, of that balance at that time as remains after the deduction therefrom of an amount equal to the minus quantity or
(ii) in any other case, an amount equal to that balance at that time;
or
(b) where the relevant interest is one of two or more interests (other than excepted interests) so subsisting, an amount equal to so much of that balance at that time as is ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule (Apportionment of Unexpended Balance of Established Development Value) to this Act to be attributable to the relevant interest;
Provided that, in a case where the relevant interest is the interest of the lessee under a lease, no payment shall be made by virtue of this section if the person entitled to the relevant interest is, at the time immediately before the service of the notice to treat, prohibited by the terms of his lease from carrying out any new development of the relevant land.
(2) Regulations made under this section shall provide".

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the next Amendment, in page 41, line 8, and the new Schedule fall to be read together. The Amendments appear to be extensive, but there is no real change in the basic principles established in the present Clause. Their main object is to do away with the need for a set of regulations and thus make the Bill more self-contained. In effect, a Schedule takes the place of a set of regulations.

Mr. Lawson: I wish to refer to (a, 1) which says:
if the restricted value of the relevant interest is a minus quantity, an amount equal to so much, if any, of that balance at that time as


remains after the deduction therefrom of an amount equal to the minus quantity
I am wondering whether that minus quantity ought to be preceded by the word "capitalisation." What is done here is the finding over a period of time what the minus quantity will amount to which will mean the capitalisation of the minus quantity.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman need not be concerned about that. I do not think that he is correct.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 41, line 8, at end insert:
(3) References in this section to the restricted value of an interest in land, in relation to an acquisition of that interest, are references to the amount which, for the purposes of Part V of the principal Act, would have been taken to be the restricted value of that interest on the appointed day if—
(a) the date of the service of the notice to treat had been appointed as the appointed day for the purposes of the said Part V;
(b) references to the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, in subsection (5) of section fifty-eight of the principal Act (which requires values to be calculated by reference to prices current immediately before that day) were references to the date of the acquisition; and
(c) references in the said section fifty-eight to the Third Schedule to the principal Act were references to that Schedule as amended by this Act. —[Special Entry.]

Clause 34.—(ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR WORKS.)

Lords Amendment: In line 21, after "apply" insert "(a)."

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It may be convenient to take this Amendment and the Amendment in line 27 together. The first part of this Amendment is purely formal. It is to provide that the Clause shall not apply where the compensation on the basis of existing use includes the full value of the permission to develop in pursuance of which the works were carried out because those works are completed or substantially completed.
The second part deals with cases where the development of part of the land had been completed and the development of the remainder had not. Its practical effect

is that the operation of the Clause is confined to so much of the development as has not been completed.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 27, at end insert:
or

(b) if the compensation on the basis of existing use payable in respect of the acquisition would be the same whether or not the said subsection (4) operated;
and where, if the notice to treat had extended to a part only of the relevant land, the amount of the compensation on the basis of existing use payable in respect of the relevant interest in so far as it subsisted in that part would have been the same whether or not the said subsection (4) operated, this section shall have effect as respects the acquisition of the relevant interest as if the notice to treat had extended only to the remainder of the relevant land.

In line 32, leave out from "constructed" to end of line 34 and insert
there shall be added to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section.

Clause 35.—(PROTECTION FOR PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 2, leave out from "by" to "stating" in line 4, and insert:
any person with respect to particular land in their district, to serve on the applicant a notice

12.30 a.m.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It might be to the convenience of the House if, together with this Amendment, we discussed the Amendments in page 42, line 9; page 42, line 13; page 42, line 36, and page 42, line 38.
The purpose of all these Amendments is to meet a number of points raised during the proceedings in another place. Perhaps it would be advisable if I were to allude briefly to the changes of substance.
The notice is to state the name of the authority which intends to acquire, and is to specify any part of the land which it is not proposed to acquire. That will, on the one hand, help to discourage authorities from notifying, an intention to acquire more land than they need, and, on the other, will indicate to the would-be purchaser any part of the land not earmarked for acquisition.
As regards the Amendment in page 42, line 38, paragraph 1 of the proviso ensures that the protection of the Clause will be available in the case where, at the time of the public acquisition, while the land has not yet been acquired by the prospective developer the contract to buy is still enforceable against him. Paragraph 2 of the same proviso provides that transactions between associated companies are not to be recognised as qualifying a company for the protection of the Clause. The further point is that the local planning authority is to be at liberty to charge a fee of 5s.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: My right hon. and gallant Friend said that these Amendments were the result of points raised in another place. He will recollect that they were raised on several occasions, and raised quite forcibly, in the Scottish Standing Committee. We thank him for the way in which these Amendments have been inserted. Some of us were very apprehensive that the opportunity given to local authorities to acquire land on the basis of the 1947 prices, that is to say, excluding any development value which might have accrued since 1948, would be taken advantage of, that they would, in a sense, have a sort of statutory option to acquire land at a value which excluded all development values which had accrued since 1948. We were most anxious that they should not hawk the land about among the various Government Departments.
As I understand, the Government have now introduced three important safeguards. They have said, first—and here they have met a point which they originally refused to us—that the planning authority must reply within 28 days. My right hon. and gallant Friend will recollect that he resisted that Amendment in Committee. Now, I am very glad to say, he has given way. Not only have planning authorities to reply within 28 days, but, if they do not, it is assumed that they do not intend to acquire the land.

Commander Galbraith: May I interrupt my hon. Friend to say that he is quite wrong? We have not accepted 28 days in this Bill.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Then this is unique, because it is the only departure from what has occurred in respect of the English Bill. It is the one instance

in which we are not slavishly following the pattern set in the other Bill.
The other two safeguards for which we are most grateful are, one, that the planning authority has now to divulge the name of the acquiring authority which wants the land, which means that we can see exactly who it is, which is another important safeguard, and, two, it also has to say if only part of the land is required. My purpose in rising was to thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for meeting us on these points.

Mr. Ross: The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that these were matters raised in another place. Did he mean on the Scottish Bill or the English Bill?

Commander Galbraith: Both Bills.

Mr. Ross: I have the OFFICIAL REPORT from another place before me and I see no reference to anybody raising the matter on the Scottish Bill.

Commander Galbraith: If the hon. Member looks at it he will see that the Lord Chancellor made certain promises.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Lord Chancellor does not raise matters for the Government to consider at a later stage. It is a great pity that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) should waste the time of the House at this hour discussing an Amendment made to the English Bill some hours ago.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 9, at end insert:
specifying in the notice—

(a) any such public authority by whom the local planning authority have been so notified; and
(b) any part of that land to which any such proposal of the local planning authority or other authority does not extend."

In line 13, leave out from "propose" to "is" in line 24 and insert:
and have not been notified of any proposal of another authority, to acquire within the next five years any interest in any land specified in the notice (in this subsection referred to as 'the specified land'), being the whole or part of the land to which the application related; and

(b) the person to whom the notice was given has within three months of the service of the notice made a bona fide contract for the purchase of an interest in the specified land or


any part thereof and given notice of the making of the contract to the local planning any part of that land,"
(c) that interest, or that interest in so far as it subsists in any part of that land,".—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In line 27, after first "by" insert "or under."

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It might be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 42, line 29. It is doubtful whether the present wording of subsection 2 (c) covers the case where powers of acquisition are conferred in a private Act confirmed subsequent to the proceedings under the private legislation procedure.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 29, leave out
published or served in accordance with that Act or Order,
and insert "duly published or served."

In line 36, leave out "time" and insert "date of service."

In line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
Provided that—
(i) this subsection shall not have effect unless at the date of the publication or service of the first notice in connection with the acquisition such as is referred to in paragraph (c) of this subsection, the contract mentioned in paragraph (b) thereof remains in force or has been implemented;
(ii) this subsection shall not have effect in relation to a purchase by a company from an associated company within the meaning of section forty-nine of this Act.
(3) Without prejudice to the duty imposed by subsection (1) of this section on a local planning authority to whom an application under that subsection has been made, the local planning authority may require the applicant to pay to them a fee of five shillings.
(4) Section thirty-three of this Act shall not apply for the purpose of assessing any compensation to the assessment of which subsection (2) of this section applies:
Provided that if the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest would, apart from this proviso, be less than it would have been if this section had not been enacted, the said subsection (2) shall not apply in the case of that acquisition. —[Special Entry.]

New Clause "A".—(ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS IN CASES WHERE NO CLAIM HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.)

Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 24, at end insert new Clause "A":
(1) If, in the case of a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, the appropriate authority is satisfied that the relevant land or some part thereof does not constitute or form part of the claim area of any established claim, but that a claim or claims in respect of one or more interests in that land, or, as the case may be, in that part thereof, would have been established if made, there shall be issued by or on behalf of the Treasury a certificate specifying—

(a) whether or not, in the opinion of the person signing the certificate, section thirty-three of this Act would have applied to the compulsory acquisition if the claim or claims aforesaid had been established; and
(b) if so, what in that person's opinion, after giving the person entitled to the relevant interest an opportunity to present his case, would have been the amount of the additional compensation calculated by reference to the unexpended balance of established development value of that land or that part thereof which would have been payable under that section in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest.
(2) Where an amount has been specified as aforesaid, that amount shall be added to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section:
Provided that if, after taking into account all the circumstances the appropriate authority is of opinion that it is not just and reasonable that the whole of that amount should be so added or, as the case may be, that any amount should be so added, the said authority may direct that such lesser amount as he may specify shall be so added or, as the case may be, that no addition to the compensation aforesaid shall be made.
(3) In this section, the expression "the appropriate authority" means—
(a) where the compulsory acquisition of the relevant interest by the acquiring authority requires authorisation by a single other authority, that other authority; or
(b) where the acquiring authority is a government department and the compulsory acquisition does not require the authorisation of any other authority, the acquiring authority; or
(c) in any other case, the Treasury or such other authority as the Treasury may in any case or class of cases direct.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of the new Clause is to implement the undertaking given on Report to enable acquiring authorities to make additional payments for development value which existed in 1947, but was


not the subject of a claim on the £300 million fund. The Clause requires that the appropriate authority, which, in accordance with subsection (3, a), will generally be the Minister confirming the compulsory purchase order, shall be satisfied that a claim would have been established, if made.
If the appropriate authority is so satisfied, a certificate is to be issued on behalf of the Treasury stating whether Clause 33 of the Bill would have applied and specifying the amount of the unexpended balance which would have been payable. Under subsection (1, b) the person acting on behalf of the Treasury, who, as the House knows, will normally be the district valuer, is, before issuing the certificate, to give the owner of the interest being acquired an opportunity of presenting his case.
Subsection (2) provides for additional payment by the acquiring authority up to the amount specified in the certificate. It lays down that payment of the specified amount is to be made unless the appropriate authority thinks it is just and reasonable not to do so. It puts the onus heavily on the appropriate authority of justifying a refusal to pay.
In the Government's view it is necessary that the confirming Minister shall have a final if limited discretion, as the Clause provides, on the point whether a payment should be made and of what amount, within the maximum. If the Clause conferred an absolute right to a payment there would be no means of avoiding payment in cases in which it would plainly be inappropriate.

Mr. D. Johnston: We all know the circumstances in England which gave rise to the Amendments which have been made in the English Bill. This is a parallel provision in the Scottish Bill. I hope I shall not be thought unsympathetic if I repeat the old tag that hard cases make bad law. We are introducing an exception to the general principle laid down, to which the previous Government and the present Government have rigidly adhered, that a time limit should be set for claims. Not only in this case but in many others a time limit is provided for claims. Indeed, it is part of our common law.
Here a departure has been made and is open to certain objections. The first

objection is that the House is being asked to vote public money of an unknown and unknowable amount to be issued and paid entirely at the discretion of the Minister. That is contrary to the whole practice of the House. Our purpose is to control the spending of public money and, if we think proper, to refuse to make payment of it.
The second objection is that no legal right is given to the person who has failed to make a claim and to whom the door is now apparently open. I say "apparently," because it may be slammed at any time by one of the numerous persons who have to be satisfied before a claim is paid.
Look at the procedure. The appropriate authority, which, in most cases, means the Minister, has to be satisfied that there is no established claim, in many cases a matter of some difficulty. He has to be satisfied that a good claim could have been made. In nine cases out of ten that will be a question partly of fact and partly of law, and is a difficult decision for any Minister. Having overcome that initial difficulty, the tenant is handed over to the Treasury, which has to be satisfied that Clause 33 would have applied. It is a pure question of law; why is it sent to the Treasury, which has not been given or been in a position to give a certificate that Clause 33 applies. The Treasury has to determine what, in its opinion, is the amount of compensation that ought to be paid.
We are told that within this Clause "the Treasury" will mean the district valuer; why should the words "district valuer" not be inserted rather than "the Treasury"? These provisions suggest that the Treasury is to be judge in its own cause; it is to be both judge and defendant. We fear that in this matter the Treasury is not being as generous as it might or is paying the appropriate amount.
Having got past the appropriate authority and the Treasury, the applicant must approach the appropriate authority again, in most cases the Minister, who is instructed by the Bill to consider all the circumstances. What is meant by "all the circumstances"? Is it a relevant circumstance that the claimant never used the 1947 Act, or that he knew that he had no claim?
12.45 a.m.
Is it relevant circumstance that he was advised that he had no claim, or that he was simply negligent in making a claim? We want to understand what is meant by "relevant circumstances." Is it relevant for the Minister to consider whether or not legal advice was offered to the possible claimant? Is it relevant to consider the quality of that legal advice? Is it relevant to consider if he was wrongly advised that he had no claim and now has a claim? We do want information on these points.
Having got through that net the claimant has then to persuade the Minister to decide whether or not the claim is just and reasonable in all the circumstances. I suggest that that is leaving wide and difficult discretion to the Minister. What will happen is that the Minister will be inundated with applications by persons who omitted to make claims because they thought they had none, or had been advised that they had none. If the Minister refuses the claim as unjust and unreasonable the claimant will go to his Member of Parliament, by whom pressure will be brought on the Minister asking for the claim to be reconsidered.
The result of that will depend on the strength and character of the Minister, who has nothing in the Clause to guide him on what circumstances should lead him to admit a claim and what circumstances should lead him to deny a claim. In the payment of public money that is most objectionable. This may go on for many years, because there is no limitation on the time in which just and equitable claims can be put forward. It may be put forward next year, but it may be 25 years' hence. If there is to be a departure from the principle of finality of claim, and I see reasons for it, it is unfortunate that the time limit was not wiped out and the whole question of claims reopened, and the non-claimant have the same right as the claimant who has now got an established claim.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Johnston) has, naturally, taken exception to the general principle of reopening claims. One doubts very much whether he or his party would want

to press it to the point of opposing this Amendment because of the hard cases which have arisen, particularly the tragic case which arose south of the Border which has led to the Amendments being inserted in another place. We asked in Committee that claims should be reopened. It is unfortunate that we were not granted that at that time, because if we had been much injustice and hardship would have been avoided.
I agree that the discretion which rests with the Minister is not altogether desirable, but I think I can see a reason for it, and I would like to hear from my right hon. and gallant Friend why it is wanted. Is it to deal with the cases of individuals who have bought land at existing use values and who ought not to receive more than existing use value in exchange? Or is there more to it than that? That is a question which I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will answer in replying to the questions by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) about the Ministerial discretion.
The hon. and learned Member complained that the claimant, the person adversely affected, has no legal right to the payment. That is true. What I complain about is that he has no appeal. He has no right to go to anyone and say, "Why am I to be excluded? Why is this Ministerial discretion to be exercised against me? Why can I get nothing? "Is there to be some kind of means test, or is it to be done purely on the narrow question of a man who is paid existing use value? These are the things about which one wants to know. And may we know also why no appeal is allowed in cases of this kind?

Mr. Lawson: When the English Bill was going through Committee, the Minister in charge dealt with precisely this point. He was under strong pressure to open up claims of this character, but resisted it. One of the points he made was that a tremendous effort had been made to make known to everybody concerned exactly what the position was, and we were entitled to assume that he meant that there was no justification at that late stage for anyone who had omitted to establish a claim.
The Minister in charge of the English Bill raised even more serious objections. He argued that to adopt such a proposal,


or to reopen claims in that fashion, would make the whole business unworkable. He spoke of the immense difficulties of finding, as the years went on, what would have been the development value in 1947 and 1948, and he ended by telling the Committee that this would mean valuations as we went along. He said that that would destroy the whole basis of the Bill.
I have to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in admitting that claim and in introducing the Amendment, there is an admission that the Bill eventually will be quite unworkable. Simply because of the Pilgrim case, an injustice has come to light, but as the years pass injustices of a similar kind, arising in many different ways, will come to light. Public authorities will find it impossible not to give in again to public clamour on those injustices or feelings that injustices have been caused.
Take, for example, the two-tier price system which has been brought into existence. It will not matter very much whether the price that a man paid for a piece of land was arrived at in this way or not. Remember what is happening; that the private owner of land is to be permitted to sell his land at the highest price he can get for it. He is permitted to sell it at market value, and we know how elastic market value is. Where a private sale is concerned, the question of compulsory purchase conditions does not apply. A man selling land on a private market basis can get as much as he can for it, and if he is a good business man he can get a very high price indeed.
A person who buys land that may have an established claim attached to it, buys it at a price greatly in excess of the existing use value plus the established claim or the balance of the established claim, yet he may be compelled to sell it compulsorily. Again, under the law as it is drawn up here, the price he would be paid and the price which should be paid legally could be very much less than the price he paid for his land. We would have the same outcry as we have in this particular case.
What is actually happening is that this is the first admission that this two-price system cannot be maintained, and that the position which the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) described is the position towards which we find ourselves moving

where, in fact, the public authorities are compelled to pay not this restricted price but the market price and nothing but the market price.
While I recognise that my right hon. Friend does not intend to divide the House on this, I should like to add that I would willingly see it divided because I feel that this in itself is a glaring admission of the absurdity of this particular Bill, and I should like to see it demonstrated in that sense.

Mr. Ross: I think we should have some more lucid explanation of how this particular new Clause will work. The Government are going out of their way to try to cover hard cases, but we have only heard of one hard case and that was in England. [Interruption.] I do not know whether this Bill refers to Northern Ireland, but perhaps that is the reason for the private conversation that is going on at the end of the Chamber.
In Scotland, we have no evidence at all of any such cases, and when the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) raised this particular point at one of the first sittings of the Committee, he got a dusty answer from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. We want to get a reason for the change of mind, and we want to be assured that the thing is really practicable.
As I see it is, first of all the person who is making the claim that he forgot for some reason or another has got to satisfy the appropriate authority. Thereafter, someone appointed by the Treasury has to give two opinions, an opinion on the compensation Clause of this Bill and then an opinion on what the amount would be. That is bad enough and sufficiently complicated and will no doubt lead to all sorts of difficulties, disagreements and objections, which are not met in any way by any part of the Bill.
But worst of the lot comes this final provision, because in subsection (2)—and this to my mind is an extraordinary piece of legislation—we find this:
Provided that if, after taking into account all the circumstances the appropriate authority is of opinion…
How is that legal tangle to be unravelled? How are we going to know whether all the circumstances have been taken into consideration, because we must presume that the person whose case is decided is


going to get a report of all the circumstances, the opinion that has been formed, and what has led to the conclusion of whether the acceptance of this thing is just and reasonable.
It is asking a lot that we should allow this to go through with this tepid explanation. I would ask the Minister to look again at this, because if we must pass this let us have as decent a piece of legislation as possible. If we are going to bring justice to hard cases, then surely we are entitled to give a form of appeal, otherwise the people who are going to be judged—it is not a case of judgment; it is a case of opinions all along the line—are going to feel very much aggrieved if somebody gives an opinion and then there is no appeal at all when their case is turned down. If the Government asks us to accept this state of affairs, then at least I think the Joint Under-Secretary or the Lord Advocate should give us a more lucid explanation.

1.0 a.m.

Commander Galbraith: I think that the point which the House has to keep in mind is the reason which led to the framing of this Clause; it is, to me, a case of hardship to which reference is being made, and the Amendment is designed to meet specific hardship. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said that this omission meant that the Bill would be unworkable; he said that an injustice had come to light. But the injustice was not created by this Bill; it resulted, as I said earlier tonight, from the operation of the original Act. It is hardship of the type which has become known as the Pilgrim case which we are anxious to avoid.
Two hon. Members have said that there should be a right of appeal, but I would put it to the House that where discretion is to be exercised it is not possible to have a right of appeal. One hon. Member spoke about an imaginary figure having to be discovered, but I submit that we are concerned with a valuation by the district valuer who has to ascertain whether a claim would have lain if notification had been given of a claim. The problem, some hon. Members seem to think, is one of very great difficulty, but I suggest that it is just the

sort of difficulty which has come to light in the working of the 1947 Act.

Mr. Lawson: Surely the 1947 Act had only one price system, whereas the new Bill introduces two price systems—the market price and the restricted value price? That is the whole basis of this Bill.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: As a valuer I say that where we are dealing with "Part V" claims under the 1947 Act, we are dealing in 1947 values; the values which we knew in 1948 and 1949; but what we are concerned with now is the fastening on the country of a system which, in 1965, 1975, and even in 1995, if the Bill goes on for that long, is not dealing with "Part V" claims, but with property compulsorily acquired, and——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be making remarks which could very well form a speech. The hon. Member on the other side of the House was in possession of the Floor.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: With very great respect, I am simply pointing out that it has been said that here there is no difference from operations under the 1947 Act and I am saying that there is a great difference by reason of the time factor in relation to which these claims are based.

Commander Galbraith: It may not be so difficult to refer back to the year 1947 as my hon. Friend seems to think. The whole point is to give a certain amount of room where there have been cases, such as the Pilgrim case, of very great hardship. That is the whole object of the Clause.
It was asked what view the Minister would take. Obviously, he would have to consider all the circumstances, because it is hardship which we are trying to cure. That is the object of the exercise. Therefore, he would have to consider whether or not any real hardship had been suffered. It might well be that no claim had been lodged and no hardship had been suffered. Therefore, the Minister must have discretion to apply such tests as are relevant to the case.

Mr. D. Johnston: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what is meant by "hardship"? Is it a hardship if a millionaire has omitted to make a


claim? Is it a hardship if a small man has omitted to make a claim? Is it a hardship if the claimant is a millionaire? Is it a hardship if the claimant is a poor man? What makes a hardship?

Commander Galbraith: It is a hardship in the opinion of the "appropriate" authority as defined in subsection (3). That is the guide.

Mr. Woodburn: I must put it to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that this proposed new Clause is either a bit of window-dressing or it means something. I very much doubt whether it does mean anything, because there are so many "ifs" and "ands" in it, and by the time we get round it all I do not suppose the applicant will be able to get past all the "ifs" and "ands," unless he has got a lot of lawyers to help him.
But perhaps it does mean something. It appears to me that it is founded on a wrong premise, because it is founded on the premise that if somebody has grossly overcharged a buyer for his land, the seller is not to restore the overcharge but the community is going to be asked to do so. In other words, we could have supported this Clause if it was intended to recover stolen property, so to speak, but this is a new idea that when somebody fleeces somebody else the community is to compensate that person.
There has been a sad case, but this sad case is being made the excuse or reason for the introduction of an open door to all sorts of claims, and I doubt whether the Minister can give us the slightest idea of what the cost will be. I ask him if he can tell us what is going to be the cost of this to the community.
Moreover, this is not finished. A number of people, including farmers, have coal seams under their ground which have been proved since the claims were closed for coal seams. If this principle is going to be introduced for this kind of property which we have been discussing, I do not see that the Government have any logical ground for refusing to admit late claims for coal seams and other things which are proved, under farms and other ground. When I speak of coal, let me point out that that was not nationalised by the Labour Government. It was nationalised by a Government before the war.
It seems to me that the Minister has not justified this proposal. I think this

is a result of yielding to a lot of pressure which has been exerted in order to use the excuse of a tragedy to burst open the doors and allow claims to fall upon the community in all sorts of guises. I think that the matter is so tied up that it may be quite safe, but, on the other hand, as the Minister says, it is open to discretion. When it is open to discretion, it may be open to wangling, because there are no definite rules attached to the matter at all. It is just a question of what somebody thinks, and what somebody might arrange to think. There might be all sorts of claims coming in which ought not to be admitted.
I am certain that none of the legal or technical advisers advised the Government about this Clause. This is a case of pandering to political agitation and putting into a complicated Bill something which has no justification either in law or in fact, or in ordinary business procedure. I do not think the Minister has made out a case.
As has been pointed out, the logical thing would be for us to register our disagreement with this Clause in the Lobby, but since that has already been done in the case of the English Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was not? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It would be the logical thing to do. We think that this is a wangle and that the Government are opening a door which might be very difficult for them to close, not only in this case but in many other cases as well.

Clause 37.—(COMPENSATION FOR SEVERANCE, INJURIOUS AFFECTION AND DISTURBANCE.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 43, line 25, leave out from beginning to "for" in line 29 and insert:
In connection with a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies—

(a) any compensation in respect of an interest in land".

In line 35, leave out from "disturbance" to "shall" in line 36.

Clause 38.—(EFFECT OF PART III ON UN EXPENDED BALANCE OF ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT VALUE.)

In page 44, line 3, leave out from "land" to "had" and insert:
in which the interest acquired or sold subsisted".

Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 10, leave out from beginning to "for" in line 15 and insert:
unless immediately after the acquisition or sale there is outstanding some interest (other than an excepted interest) in that land to which some person other than the acquiring authority is entitled,".

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It might be convenient if we took the Amendment with the Amendment in page 44, line 20, and the Amendment in page 44, line 32.
All these Amendments are consequential on changes made in Clause 23 and the introduction of the new Schedule.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 44, line 20, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 29 and insert:
(ii) if immediately after the acquisition or sale there is outstanding any such interest as aforesaid, then for the purposes of any other Part of this Act there shall be deducted from the said original balance an amount equal to any part of the relevant balance which is not, or which in the appropriate circumstances would not have been, attributable for the purposes of the said section thirty-three to any such outstanding interest.
In line 32, at end insert:
Provided that in the event of a subsequent compulsory acquisition of any such outstanding interest, being a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, the said section thirty-three shall have effect for the purposes of assessing the compensation payable as if this subsection had not been enacted. [Special Entry.]

New Clause "B."—(ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION IN CERTAIN CASES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 42, at end insert new Clause "B":
(1) In the case of any compulsory acquisition to which any of the following provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, that is to say—

(a) subsection (2) of section twelve;
(b) subsection (4) of section seventeen; and
(c) subsection (2) of section thirty-six,
(which relate respectively to the compensation to be paid on the compulsory acquisition of closed houses, of houses subject to notices relating to the execution of works, and of houses unfit for human habitation) applies, whether by virtue of the said Act of 1950 or by virtue of any other enactment, being a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act

applies, the compensation payable in respect of the land or house acquired may be less than, but shall not exceed, the value, at the time when the valuation is made, of the site as a cleared site available for development in accordance with the requirements of the building regulations for the time being in force in the district; and accordingly the said provisions shall have effect, in relation to a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, as if the references therein to the compensation to be paid were references to the maximum compensation payable.
(2) In this section references to compensation are references to compensation payable in respect of the acquisition otherwise than by virtue of section thirty-three of this Act and exclusive of any compensation for disturbance or for severance or for injurious affection.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It might be for the convenience of the House if we considered the Amendment together with the Amendments in page 44, line 43; page 80, line 1; page 92, line 46; page 94, line 11; page 94, line 22, and page 94, line 29.

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order. I understand that we are discussing the proposed now Clause "B," which covers the point that we raised with regard to cleared sites.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is quite confusing to jump the pages in this way. The Amendments might be discussed together, but they should be put separately.

Commander Galbraith: It was only for the convenience of the House that I made the suggestion, but in view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it might be permissible to take the new Clause with the Amendment in page 44, line 43.
The new Clause and that Amendment give effect to the undertaking which the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said was given on the Report stage to amend the Clause so as to secure that compensation payable will not exceed the compensation that would have been payable under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950 if the "cleared site" formula in that Act had not been repealed by this Clause. That is the purpose of the new Clause.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I should like to express our thanks to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for this Amendment. When the Bill was first printed we were


rather alarmed about the change in the valuation. While we were assured that, in practice, it would mean local authorities would probably pay less when buying such properties, it did not seem quite certain. We felt there was a little possibility that, in addition to paying for the site, they might be asked to pay for the building also. We are glad that this has been included. It covers a point about which many of my hon. Friends were disturbed.

Clause 39.—(AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS OF HOUSING (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1950, RELATING TO CLEARED SITE VALUES.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 43, line 43, leave out Clause 39.

Clause 40.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 20 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

In page 45, line 34, leave out, "this Part of."

In line 38, after "and" insert "in this Part of the Act."

Clause 41.—(RECORDING OF NOTICES AS TO, AND APPORTIONMENT OF, COMPENSATION FOR DEPRECIATION.)

In page 46, line 29, leave out "Subsections (2) and (3)" and insert "Subsection (2)."

Clause 42.—(EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS COMPENSATION IN CERTAIN CASES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 19, at end insert:
Provided that the amount of any such contribution shall not exceed—

(a) the amount of the compensation for depreciation paid by the local planning authority; or
(b) the unexpended balance of established development value at the date of the making of the order of the land in respect of which that compensation was paid.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Subsection (1) of this Clause provides for the making of contributions by the Secretary of State towards compensation for depreciation paid by a local planning authority in consequence of its having revoked or modified planning permission. The amount of the contribution is to be the compensation which would have been

payable under Part II or Part V of the Bill if the permission had been refused in the first instance or granted as subsequently modified. This might not produce a fair result if there had been a marked fall in values between the date of the original decision and the date of the revocation or modification. The Amendment provides against that possibility.

Mr. McInnes: As the Lord Advocate has indicated, this Clause provides for the Secretary of State making contributions towards compensation for depreciation paid by local authorities in consequence of their having revoked or modified planning permission. But the obvious intention of the Amendment is designed to protect the Secretary of State against any fall in the value which may have taken place between the date of the original decision and the date of the revocation or modification.
How do we measure the extent of the depreciation resulting from revocation or modification? I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not say we are to measure it by adopting the old formula of the before and after method. That method is about as complex and intricate as some of the explanations coming from the Lord Advocate; before he makes them we know nothing and after he has made them we know just the same.
In the granting of the contributions is the power of the Secretary of State to be mandatory or permissive? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at page 47 he will see that it says that
… the Secretary of State may, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the local planning authority a contribution …
If the local planning authority has already paid compensation for depreciation, why does the Secretary of State have the mere permissive power to grant contributions to the local authority compensating it for the payment made?

The Lord Advocate: On the question of whether the power of the Secretary of State is permissive or mandatory, the word "may" could apply to both. In fact, as I see it, it would be mandatory. On the point about how the figure is to be arrived at and whether it is to be the before and after method, as I understand the situation, it would be calculated by


the before and after method. If a better method can be devised no doubt it could be adopted.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 38, after "applying" insert:
with any necessary modifications.

Clause 43.—(RECOVERY, ON SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT, OF COMPENSATION UNDER S. 20 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

In page 47, line 43, at beginning insert:
Subsections (1) to (9) of.

In line 47, leave out, "it has" and insert "they have."

Clause 44.—(SCOPE OF PART V.)

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 6, leave out from "holding" to "and" in line 7.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The words proposed to be left out might have the result of making compensation payable in respect of land which was not the subject of a claim on the £300 million fund, if it happened to be held in the same ownership as other land affected by the same decision which was the subject of a claim. That was not intended and would, indeed, be contrary to the basic principles of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 14, leave out from "Act" to end of line 17 and insert:
in relation to a claim for compensation in respect of any such claim holding so subsisting as aforesaid, any such land is referred to as "qualified land" and the claim holding is referred to as "the relevant holding.
(3) Subsection (3) of section sixteen of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act as it has effect for the purposes of Part II of this Act, with the substitution for the reference to a planning decision made after the commencement of this Act of a reference to a planning decision made before the commencement of this Act.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There are two purposes for this Amendment. The first is purely drafting and the second is consequential on the new subsection (3) of Clause 16.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 45.—(RIGHT TO COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF PAST PLANNING DECI SIONS, OR PAST REVOCATIONS, &C., OF PLANNING PERMISSION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 21, after "if" insert "(a)."

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It may be convenient to discuss this with the Amendment in page 49, line 22, and in page 50, line 10. It is a drafting Amendment and prepares the way for the new paragraph (b) in the Amendment in page 49, line 22.
The purpose of this Amendment and the consequential Amendments I have mentioned is to provide for cases where land subject to planning restrictions was sold between 18th November, 1952, and the coming into operation of the Bill and the claim on the £300 million fund was retained by the seller. As the Bill stands, no payment could be claimed by the holder of the claim holding in those circumstances, either under Part V or Part I, although he might have realised in the sale only a fraction of the unrestricted value of the land.
The effect of the Amendment is that the seller will be able to claim compensation for any depreciation caused by the planning decision in the same way as if he had not parted with the land. The consequential Amendments make the necessary adjustments in the ordinary procedure for determining the amount of compensation payable.

Mr. Ross: I do not know how many times another set of beneficiaries has been introduced. Could we have some indication from the Joint Under-Secretary of State as to how many cases are involved and how much it is going to cost?

Commander Galbraith: At present, as far as I know, there is only one case that is known.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 49, line 22, leave Out from "land" to "interest" in line 24 and insert:
or

(b) having been entitled to an interest in any qualified land at the date of the decision or order, he sold that interest (otherwise than to a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) in pursuance of a contract made after that date and during the period beginning with the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and ending immediately before the commencement of this Act,
and the value of that interest or of another interest which has merged therein or, in the case of an interest extending to other land, the value of that or of that other.

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 39, at end insert:
(2) A person who has become entitled to the relevant holding by virtue of the exercise of any power conferred by an assignation in security shall be entitled to such compensation as aforesaid, notwithstanding that he does not satisfy the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the preceding subsection, if the assignor would have been entitled to such compensation if he had continued to be the holder of the relevant holding.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is to deal with cases where an assignee has taken an assignation of the relevant Part V claim as part of his security. As the Bill stands, neither the assignor nor the assignee would in such circumstances be able to claim under Part V of the Bill. The assignee is to be entitled to whatever the assignor could have claimed had he remained the holder of the claim holding.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether he is quite satisfied that by the time we come to the end of the Bill all the new cases coming up are likely to be covered?

Commander Galbraith: I hope that everything that is reasonable will be covered.

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 41, after "land" insert:
, or of an interest in so far as it subsisited in qualified land.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the next two Amendments to Clause 45, page 50, line 1, and page 50, line 5, are consequential on the amalgamation of Clauses 23 and 24.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 50, line 1, leave out "sections twenty-three and twenty-four" and insert "section twenty-three."

In line 5, leave out from "if" to "and" in line 9 and insert:
the reference in subsection (1) of the said section twenty-three to Part II of this Act were a reference to this Part of this Act;

In line 13, leave out "to" and insert "(3), (4) and."

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 16, at end insert:
Provided that, in a case to which paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section applies, for the reference in the said section twenty-two to the Secretary of State's giving notice of his determination in respect of the claim for compensation there shall he substituted a reference to the making of the contract of sale.
(4) In determining for the purposes of a claim for compensation under this Part of this Act whether, or to what extent, the value of an interest in land was depreciated by such an order as aforesaid—

(a) regard shall be had to any compensation which has become payable to the person entitled to that interest in respect of that order under section twenty of the principal Act otherwise than by virtue of the proviso to subsection (1) of that section;
(b) any grant of, or undertaking to grant planning permission made or given during the period between the making of the order and the time when the Secretary of State gives notice of his determination in respect of that claim, being a grant or undertaking which is in force at the end of that period, shall be taken into account as if it had been in force at the beginning of that period;
(c) Part VI of the principal Act shall be deemed not to have applied after the date when the order was made:
Provided that, in a case to which paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section applies, no account shall be taken of any grant or undertaking made or given after the making of the contract of sale.
(5) Where the interest to which the holder of the relevant holding is entitled or, as the case may be, which he sold, is or was subject to a lease granted after the planning decision or order and on or after the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect as if that lease had not been granted

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The proviso preceding the new subsection (4) in the Amendment is introduced as a necessary adjustment of the application of Clause 22, under which the Secretary of State may undertake to grant planning permission which has the effect of excluding compensation. The new subsection (4) introduces the appropriate code for determining whether a revocation or modification order has depreciated the development value of land.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 46.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR PAST PLANNING DECISIONS, REVOCATIONS, &C.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 50, line 29, leave out from "if" to end of line.

In line 34, leave out from "If" to third "the."

In line 36, leave out "was" and insert is."

In line 41, leave out "were and were" and insert "are and are."

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 33, at end, insert:
Provided that where the same person is entitled to such compensation as aforesaid in respect of more than one relevant holding, or in respect of more than one interest, or in respect both of more than one relevant holding and of more than one interest, the aggregate principal amount payable to that person by way of such compensation in respect of all interests in respect of which he is so entitled in so far as they subsisted in the same land shall not exceed whichever is the less of the following amounts, that is to say—

(i) the aggregate of the amounts by which the value of each respectively of those interests in so far as it subsisted in that land was depreciated by the decision or order; or
(ii) the aggregate of the fractions of the respective values of all relevant holdings of which that person is the holder which attached to that land.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment provides for the possibility that the same person may be able to claim compensation under Part V of the Bill in respect of more than one interest or more than one claim holding

relating to the same land. That, naturally, would be undesirable.

Mr. Woodburn: May I congratulate the Government on the fact that for once they have introduced an Amendment to stop somebody getting money out of the Government?

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 47.—(CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER PART V, AND REVIEW OF PAST DECISIONS AND ORDERS.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 51, line 1, leave out from first "of" to "shall" in line 3 and insert:
sections twenty-five and twenty-eight of this Act

In line 5, leave out "section twenty-five of this Act" and insert:
the said section twenty-five".

Lords Amendment: In line 14, leave out "in such a case" and insert:
the claim is in respect of a refusal of permission or of a grant of permission subject to conditions and".

1.30 a.m.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It may be convenient if we also deal with the Lords Amendments on page 51, line 19, and page 51, line 33. These Amendments have the effect of excluding revocation and modification orders from the Secretary of State's power to review decisions in respect of which compensation is claimed. He will already have fully considered all the circumstances before he made those orders.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 19, leave out from "relates" to end of line 21 and insert:
In this subsection, the reference to a decision more favourable to the applicant shall be construed—

(a) in relation to a refusal of permission, as a reference to a decision granting the permission, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, and either as respects the whole or as respects part of the land to which the application for permission related; and
(b) in relation to a grant of permission subject to conditions, as a reference to a decision granting the permission applied for unconditionally or subject to less stringent conditions.
In line 33, leave out subsection (5).

Clause 48.—(PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION UNDER PART V, AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING THERETO.)

Lords Amendment: In page 52 line 29, at end insert:
Provided that if at any time an amount becomes recoverable under section thirty-one of this Act, as applied by the subsequent provisions of this section, in respect of that compensation, then, for the purposes of Parts II and III of this Act, paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection shall have effect as from that time as if the principal amount of that compensation had been reduced by a sum equal to seven-eighths of the amount which has so become recoverable.
(3) Where in the case of any claim holding (in this subsection referred to as "the parent holding") compensation under this Part of this Act is payable in respect of the depreciation of an interest in land by one or more planning decisions or orders, and any such decision or order did not extend to the whole of the area of the parent holding, then, both for the purposes of the last preceding subsection and for the purposes of Parts II and III of this Act—

(a) the parent holding shall be treated as having been divided immediately before the commencement of this Act into as many separate claim holdings, with such areas, as may be necessary to ensure that in the case of each holding either any such decision or order extending to the area of that holding extended to the whole thereof or that no such decision or order extended to the area of that holding;
(b) the value of each of the separate holdings respectively shall be taken to be that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to the part of the area of the parent holding constituting the area of the separate holding;
(c) the authority determining the amount of any such compensation shall apportion that amount between the areas of the separate claim holdings to which the decision or order in question extended in such manner as appears to that authority proper, and the portion of that amount apportioned to the area of any separate claim holding shall be taken to be compensation payable under this Part of this Act in respect of that claim holding.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It might be convenient if we also take the Lords Amendment in line 31. The Amendment does two things. First, it provides for the case where compensation paid under Part V of the Bill becomes recoverable on subsequent development of the land. The second purpose is to ensure that when a compensation payment is made in respect of pail only of the area of a claim holding, it is

debited against the fraction of the value of the holding appropriate to that part and not against the holding as a whole.

Mr. Lawson: Could I have an explanation of the effects of the Amendment? This relates to a case which I raised on Report. The question then was what was the effect of this compensation when a claim had been in part liquidated. It seems to me that what happens is that the claim is in part liquidated, or perhaps wholly liquidated, through the refusal to permit development, and then subsequently development is permitted and the party who had received compensation has to repay it. Is the unexpended value brought back to its original amount? In the event of compulsory purchase, would a local authority have to pay on the basis of this renewed unexpended value?

Commander Galbraith: I answered that question fully on Report.

Mr. Lawson: The answer I was then given was that the local authority would not be required to pay that amount, and if I read this Amendment correctly, that answer was wrong. Is that so?

Mr. D. Johnston: Is not my hon. Friend right? Does not the Amendment do what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said was done previously?

Commander Galbraith: The unexpended balance is in effect brought back and the local authority would have to pay the full claim.

Mr. Lawson: That is not what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said on Report. He said the contrary.

Mr. D. Johnston: Is not the answer to my hon. Friend's question, "Yes, I was wrong"?

Commander Galbraith: No.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 31, after "Act" insert:
,except subsection (10) of the said section thirty-one,

Clause 50.—(PROVISION OF INFORMATION AS TO UNEXPENDED BALANCE, &C.)

Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 15, after "apportionment" insert:
or, in the case of a certificate under the last preceding subsection, involves the calculation of a deduction from the original unexpended


balance of established development value of the land by virtue of subsection (4) of section eighteen of this Act,".

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It might be convenient also to take the next four Lords Amendments. They all deal with a single point, however many lines they may involve.
Subsection (2) provides for the issue to an acquiring authority of a certificate stating the amount of the unexpended balance at the date of notice to treat. Subsection (3) already provides opportunity for those concerned to dispute any new apportionment involved in the calculation. But there is a second element involved which may lead to differences of opinion, namely the extent to which the unexpended balance should be written down under Clause 18 (4) to take account of any development of the land. It is a small point. To cope with that second element the Amendment makes provision for this matter also to be the subject of representation and reference to the Lands Tribunal.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 54, line 25, after "apportionment" insert "or calculation,".

In line 26, after "apportionment" insert "or calculation,".

In line 32, after "apportionment" insert "or calculation,".

In line 37, after "apportionment" insert "or calculation,".

Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 15, at end insert:
(6) A certificate under subsection (2) of this section shall be conclusive evidence of the unexpended balance shown therein, and a certificate under subsection (1) of this section shall be sufficient proof of any facts stated therein unless the contrary is shown.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment makes a certificate issued to an acquiring authority under subsection (2) of the Clause conclusive evidence of the unexpended balance. There is full opportunity, before the certificate is given, for an appeal, and everyone's rights are safeguarded. It also obviates the need to produce evidence

in support of any facts stated in a certificate under subsection (1) unless they are contested.

Clause 51.—(CANCELLATION OR REDUC TION OF LIABILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT CHARGES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 56, line 7, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert:
(4) Where, for the purposes of the Second Schedule to this Act, one or more development charges such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are covered by an assignation of one or more claim holdings to the Central Land Board, and by virtue of the provisions of that Schedule one or more of those claim holdings are deemed to have been extinguished or reduced in value by reference to the unpaid balance of the charge or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the unpaid balances of the charges, as therein mentioned, a sum equal to, or to the aggregate of—

(a) the value of any such holding which is deemed to have been extinguished; and
(b) the amount of the reduction in the value of any such holding which is deemed to have been reduced in value but not extinguished,
shall be deducted from that balance or that aggregate of balances and—

(i) if that sum is equal to that balance or aggregate of balances, the charge or charges and any liability of any person in respect thereof shall be discharged;
(ii) if that sum is less than that balance or aggregate of balances, the charge or charges, or the balance or respective balances thereof remaining unpaid at the commencement of this Act, shall be reduced by an amount, or, as the case may be, shall be reduced rateably by an aggregate amount, equal to that sum:
Provided that where paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to this Act applies, any development charge in connection with which the claim holding in question was assigned in accordance with the arrangements mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph and any liability of any person in respect thereof shall be discharged without regard to the treatment of the claim holding in question.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is little more than a re-arrangement of the drafting. Subsection (4) deals with cases where one or more claim holdings have been assigned to the Central Land Board as security for one or more development charges. The Second Schedule provides for deducting the amount outstanding by way of development charge from the value of


the appropriate claim holdings, and subsection (4) provides for the corresponding discharge of the development charge liability.
It is proposed to make a number of Amendments to the Second Schedule in order to simplify the calculations required. The effect of these will be that where two or more development charges were incurred in respect of land in the area of the same claim holding they are to be aggregated, and the aggregate amount outstanding deducted from the holdings assigned. This method of calculation makes necessary corresponding changes in subsection (4), but they are little more than drafting. The aggregate liability of the person who incurred the charges is not affected in any way.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 57, line 15, leave out "subsections (2) and" and insert "subsection."

Lords Amendment: In line 18, after "section" insert:
except in subsection (4) thereof.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment designed to remove contradictions in the Clause.

Mr. Ross: Times out of number one of the two Ministers gets up from the Government Front Bench and says, "Drafting" but we do not know what the Amendments are consequential upon. In this case we are told that there is a contradiction in the Clause. Would it not be as well to tell us what the contradiction is?

The Lord Advocate: There is no question of anything consequential in this Amendment. The contradiction is that subsection (4) relates to cases where a development charge is met by deduction from one or more claim holdings under the Second Schedule. In that Schedule, the unpaid balance of a development charge is defined as referring only to the principal element which is outstanding. It must obviously bear the same meaning in subsection (4), and that is why the Amendment is needed.

Mr. Ross: Thank you.

Clause 52.—(EXCHEQUER GRANTS TO LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES.)

Lords Amendment: In line 8, at end insert:
Provided that, in relation to—

(i) land acquired for use as a public open space; or
(ii) such part, if any, of any land appropriated as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section as is intended for such use,
the regulations may provide that, if in any particular case the Secretary of State is satisfied that, having regard to the expenditure in respect of which the grant is to be made and the financial circumstances of the local planning authority concerned, it is just that a higher grant should be made, the amount of the grant in that particular case shall be an amount equal to such percentage, exceeding fifty but not exceeding seventy-five per cent., of the costs, excess or expenditure aforesaid as the Secretary of State may determine.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is introduced in pursuance to an undertaking given on behalf of the Government at an earlier stage. In deference to the feelings expressed in favour of increased Exchequer grants for the provision of playing fields the Government have thought right to provide for Ministerial discretion to pay a higher rate of grant for public open spaces in certain circumstances.

Mr. Woodburn: I hope we shall be given an assurance that the Minister will use his discretion in this matter.

The Lord Advocate: Yes. I do not think if the power is given, and there is a suitable case, he will not do so.

Mr. Hoy: Has any estimate been made of what this will cost?

The Lord Advocate: No, this is not a matter one can estimate within precise figures.

Mr. Lawson: Could the introduction of the term "playing fields" not be considered in place of "public spaces"? In Edinburgh, there are open spaces which are not much use for playing purposes.

The Lord Advocate: I think that "public open spaces" is a wider term than playing fields, and would include playing fields.

Mr. McInnes: As it rests with the Minister what rate will be paid, and as it is not a flat rate, could not a definite percentage be laid down, or is each case to be treated on its merits?

The Lord Advocate: As the hon. Gentleman knows the general basis is a 50 per cent. grant, but in these instances the Secretary of State has the discretion if he is satisfied to pay a higher grant than that.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 62, line 19, leave out "or sale."

Clause 54.—(RECOVERY OF CERTAIN SUMS FROM ACQUIRING AUTHORITIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 63, line 7, leave out from "is" to end of line 10 and insert:
by virtue of subsection (3) of section fifty-eight of this Act to be treated as apportioned to the land in which the interest acquired or sold subsisted.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment which substitutes for the present general wording of the Bill a precise reference to the provisions of the Bill.

Clause 58.—(RECOVERY, ON SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS OF PAYMENTS UNDER S. 56 OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 67, line 21, at end insert:
or which would be so recoverable but for the provisions of paragraph (i) of the proviso to that subsection;

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is put down to remove an anomaly which would otherwise result from this part of the Bill. Subsection (7) of Clause 54 provides for the recovery from public authorities of any payments made under section 56 of the 1947 Act in respect of interests in land which they have acquired, but the proviso to the section inter alia excepts the cases specified in subsections (2) and (3) of the Clause. The present Amend-

ment is necessary to prevent that exception from being nullified by the provisions of the present Clause, under which section 56 payments are to be recorded in the appropriate Register of Sasines and under subsection (2) are to be recoverable on development of the land. The effect of the amendment is that the excepted payments will not be recorded and will thus not be recoverable.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 67, line 38, after "Act" insert:
,except subsection (10) thereof".

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: I hope the Lord Advocate will cease using the words "purely drafting." All the trouble we are having here is because of impure drafting not pure drafting.

Lords Amendment: In page 68, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The effect of this Amendment is to delete a provision where anyone developing land within 12 months of the coming into operation of the Bill would have become liable to repay any payment made under Section 56 of the 1947 Act which might subsequently be registered against the land.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

New Clause "C."—(APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 68, line 27, at end, insert new Clause "C":
(1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an application is made to a local planning authority for permission to develop land by the erection thereon of an industrial building, being an application which would, apart from this section, be of no effect by virtue of subsection (4) of section twelve of the principal Act (which provides that certain applications for such permission shall be of no effect unless it is certified by the Board of Trade that the development in question can be carried out consistently with the proper


distribution of industry) the local planning authority shall consider whether, if the requirements of the said subsection (4) had been satisfied, they would nevertheless have refused the permission sought by the application either as respects the whole or as respects part of the land to which the application relates; and if they are of opinion that they would so have refused that permission, they shall serve on the applicant a notice in writing to that effect.
(2) Where a notice has been served under the preceding subsection as respects the whole or part of any land, the provisions of this Act and of sections seventeen and eighteen of the principal Act, and, where by virtue of the preceding provisions of this subsection a direction has been given under subsection (3) of section twenty-six of this Act, the other provisions of the principal Act, shall have effect as respects that land or that part thereof as if the application had been of effect and permission had been refused.

1.45 a.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of the new Clause is to remove an anomaly in relation to the compensation provisions of the Bill produced by Section 12 (4) of the principal Act. That subsection is designed to secure the proper distribution of industry and provides that a local planning authority may not entertain an application for permission for industrial development over a certain size unless the application is accompanied with a certificate from the Board of Trade certifying that the proposed development is consistent with the proper distribution of industry.
The new Clause places a duty on the local planning authority where it receives an application for planning permission for industrial development, which requires to be supported by such a certificate, but without any such certificate accompanying the application. The local planning authority is required to consider the application and, if it would have refused planning permission, to notify the applicant to that effect.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Lord Advocate said that the new Clause is to remedy an anomaly in Section 12 (4) of the principal Act, and he went on to say what subsection 4 does. But he hardly sought to convince us that anomaly had been created by it, and he hardly explained the exact effect of the new Clause.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right that Section 12 (4) of the 1947 Act, which is here being amended, was concerned with the better distribution

of industry. The then Government were interested in the better distribution of industry. It appears that the present Government are not so interested. However, if an intending industrial developer gets a certificate from the Board of Trade, he would in any case come to the local planning authority, without the new Clause; and if the local planning authority refused permission, the question of compensation would immediately arise.
What is now proposed is that where the intending developer goes to the Board of Trade for an industrial development certificate and fails to get it, he will none the less be required to go to the local authority. The local planning authority will require to decide whether it would have granted planning permission if the Board of Trade had granted a certificate authorising the site to be developed.
The local planning authority is given an impossible task. It has to take a decision in imagining certain circumstances which it knows do not obtain. If the local planning authority says that if a certificate had been granted it would in any case have refused permission to develop the site, Sections 17 and 18 of the principal Act and Clause 26 of the Bill begin to operate; compensation may be payable.
But why should the local authority say that it would have refused permission if the Board of Trade had already refused permission? Why should the local authority not simply say, "Yes, we would have granted permission," and no compensation would then be payable? No compensation would be payable if the local authority says that it would have granted permission notwithstanding that the Board of Trade has already refused permission. That is the position created by the new Clause.
The Government, apparently, imagine that in many cases the local authority will say, "We would have refused permission." Then, they provide in subsection (2) of the new Clause that Section 17 of the 1947 Act will apply, which says that the local authority might be required in certain circumstances to purchase the land. Clause 18 would then operate under which the local authority would be required in certain cases to pay compensation
The Government also say—and this is a most extraordinary thing—under subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause:
… where by virtue of the preceding provisions of this subsection a direction has been given under subsection (3) of section twenty-six of this Act …
Section 26 (3) of the Bill provides for the Secretary of State issuing a direction giving permission to the intending developer—that is, upholding the appeal by the intending developer against the refusal by the local planning authority to grant permission.
Let us see what is the position if the local authority say that they would have granted permission and no compensation was payable. If the local authority refused to give permission and if the Board of Trade had not already refused the application, then compensation would become payable, but the Secretary of State, in justifying Clause 26, envisaged that it was the intending developer who would appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of the local authority when it had refused him permission to develop the site. If, under this Clause, the intending developer is refused permission by the local planning authority and he has been refused permission by the Board of Trade, he will be quite satisfied because then he will get compensation.
But the Government for some reason or another seem to imagine that the intending developer will go to the Secretary of State and he will issue a direction under subsection (3) of Clause 26. What would be the effect of that? I will quote what it says:
If in any case it appears to the Secretary of State that permission could properly be granted (either unconditionally or subject to certain conditions) for some development of the land in question, other than the development to which the application for permission related, the Secretary of State may give a direction …
A site may be developed, but this only goes to the Secretary of State under this Clause if the Board of Trade say that the site cannot be developed. If the Secretary of State says that the site can be developed and the Board of Trade says that it cannot be developed, then the question arises, can the site be developed? Surely this is a very complicated and curious provision. Indeed,

there can be no sillier provision in the Bill than this new Clause which we are asked to add to the Bill.

Mr. Ross: I would not be so sure about that.

Mr. Fraser: There cannot be a sillier provision, because if the Board of Trade say no, under the existing law no application is going to the local planning authority at all, and then the local authority has got to put that out of its mind altogether and consider whether it would have granted planning permission on planning grounds if that certificate had been issued by the Board of Trade.
There is no justification at all for this new Clause. The Lord Advocate would not pretend that the speech with which he introduced this new Clause was a justification for it. There was no justification for it in another place. It is a completely new provision put in this Bill at this stage, and if there were more time to consider it it would be further amended as almost every Clause of this Bill has been amended since it was introduced last Easter.
The best thing which the Government could possibly do in the matter of this Clause is to withdraw it and to offer some very good reason for wishing to disagree with the Amendment, and I sincerely hope that some spokesman on behalf of the Government will now say that that is what is proposed.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member is quite right in saying that if an applicant had a certificate then he need not use this Clause, but this procedure does, however, provide a remedy to cure an injustice where there is no certificate produced with the application. Under this Clause, the local planning authority—which, I think, we are entitled to presume, will act reasonably and in a fair manner—will consider the application and, even although the certificate is not forthcoming, will notify the applicant if permission would have been refused.
In subsection (2) of the Clause, the notice for the purpose of compensation under the Bill will rank as a refusal of planning permission. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down spoke about Clause 26 (3) as causing inconsistency and even chaos in relation to the operation of the Clause we are now discussing, but Clause 26 deals with a totally different situation.

Mr. Fraser: The Lord Advocate has sought to justify this Clause by saying that it is designed to cure an injustice, but he has not explained what is that injustice; I must admit that I had some difficulty in understanding it. A certain situation arises because of the refusal of the Board of Trade to grant a certificate; but statutory powers under the Board of Trade for the grant or otherwise of a certificate are still considered to be proper by this Government; the regulations about the location of industry are still thought to be proper and, therefore, a refusal to grant permission is not an injustice. Surely the injustice here is to the local authority which is going to be required to pay compensation—and for what? For the Board of Trade's refusal to allow industry to be located in that particular local authority's area. Is that not the case? I should be obliged if that could be satisfactorily explained.

The Lord Advocate: Where the Board of Trade has refused a certificate, the local planning authority cannot accept under the law as it now is, and without this new Clause, an application as a proper application for planning permission; and cannot, accordingly, give a planning decision on it. Consequently, an applicant has no title to claim compensation under Part II. I submit that what we here propose is action to remedy an anomaly; not an injustice.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 60.—(CROWN LAND.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 69, line 20, leave out "derives title" and insert:
is, or derives title from a person who was, entitled."—[Special Entry.]

Clause 62.—(TRANSFER TO SECRETARY OF STATE OF FUNCTIONS OF CENTRAL LAND BOARD EXERCISABLE IN SCOTLAND.)

In page 71, line 6. leave out "the date of the making of" and insert:
such date as may be specified in

In line 10, at end insert:
(2) On the dissolution of the Central Land Board, by an Order in Council under the said section sixty-two, section one of the principal Act (which relates to that Board) shall cease to have effect.

New Clause "D."—(PROVISION FOR DIVERSION OF PAYMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 74, line 5, at end insert:
(1) Regulations made under this section may make provision as to the exercise of the right to apply for a payment under Part I of this Act, or to claim compensation under Part II or Part V thereof or compensation for depreciation within the meaning of subsection (3) of section forty of this Act, and as to the person to whom any such payment or compensation, or any part thereof, is to be made or paid, and as to application of any such payment or compensation or any part thereof, in cases where, apart from this section, the right to apply for the payment or to claim the compensation, as the case may be, is exercisable by reference to—

(a) a claim holding which is subject to an assignation in security, or which was so subject at a time specified in the regulations; or
(b) an interest in land which is subject to a ground annual or a heritable security or a trust, or which was so subject at a time specified in the regulations; or
(c) an interest in land which is the interest of a vassal or a lessee.
(2) Any regulations made under this section may provide—

(a) for such conditions as may be prescribed to be attached to the making or paying by virtue of the regulations of any such payment or compensation as aforesaid or any part thereof;
(b) for the application, in a case where any payment or compensation, or any part thereof, is by virtue of the regulations to be made or paid to a superior or to the creditor in a ground annual, of all or any of the provisions of section twenty-five of the War Damage Act, 1943 (which relates to the rights of superiors and creditors in ground annuals as to payments for war damage) subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed; and
(c) for any disputes, or any disputes of such classes as may be prescribed, arising out of the regulations to be referred to the Lands Tribunal for determination by that Tribunal.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Perhaps it would be convenient to take this proposed new Clause with the Amendments in page 74, lines 6 and 22. This new Clause amalgamates the existing Clauses 65 and 66.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 65.—(PROVISION FOR MAKING PAY MENTS IN CERTAIN CASES TO OWNERS OF INTERESTS OTHER THAN THOSE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THEY ACCRUE.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 74, line 6, leave out Clause 65.

Clause 66.—(PROVISION AS TO PAYMENTS IN CERTAIN CASES AFFECTED BY TRUSTS AND HERITABLE SECURITIES.)

In page 74, leave out Clause 66.

Clause 68.—(PROVISIONS AS TO REGULATIONS.)

In page 75, leave out lines 26 to 28.

Clause 69.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 76, line 13, at end insert:
'compensation on the basis of existing use' means compensation with respect to the assessment of which the following provisions apply, that is to say, the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as modified by sections forty-eight, fifty and fifty-one of the principal Act, not being compensation calculated on the basis of equivalent reinstatement or on the basis of prevailing use and excluding any compensation for disturbance or for severance or injurious affection;".

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment which puts a definition in a better place than it was in previously.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS

2.2 a.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. A. Allan.]

Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hyde: I am glad to have this opportunity of raising the subject of obscene publications even in the limited context of an Adjournment debate and at this inconveniently late hour. It is a subject which is of particular interest and importance to all those who, on the one hand, are concerned with the country's moral health, especially with the moral health of its young, and on the other hand, to all those who value our tradition of literary freedom.
People are puzzled by the apparent anomalies and inconsistencies of the present law of obscene libel. For instance, they wonder why material known as crime comics or horror comics, some of it of a decidedly objectionable character, is allowed to enter the country unchecked, or in some cases to originate here, while, at the same time, the law permits a bench of county magistrates, as happened recently, to order the destruction as obscene of all copies found by the police in a bookshop of Bocaccio's "Decameron," a work which has been regarded as a literary classic throughout the civilised world for the past 500 years.
The procedure for dealing with obscene publications falls into four parts. The law can be invoked to prosecute a publisher, a printer or an author for the common law misdemeanour of publishing an obscene libel. On the other hand, the Obscene Publications Act, 1857, often called Lord Campbell's Act, operates in a different way, in a rather unique way, in that it does not directly concern the author or the publisher, but merely the article itself and the shopkeeper or retailer who stocks it. Then there is the Customs Act, 1876, under which obscene publications and other articles can be seized at the port of entry, and, fourthly, the Post Office Act, 1953, under which articles similarly can be seized in the post.
The test of obscenity was laid down nearly 100 years ago and is still the law


today. It was laid down in the leading case of Regina versus Hicklin by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. He said:
The test of obscenity is this: whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.
That is the test and it is so applied today, although the manner of the application has varied as times have changed. It has been approved by the present Lord Chief Justice in a recent case.
The drawback of the test is its rigidity. In the first place, it has airways been applied hitherto in connection with sex matters, but if one takes the words "obscene" and "immoral" they are not strictly speaking in the dictionary sense exclusively applied to sex, though many people appear to think that they are. Like other hon. Members I went to see the exhibition of crime and horror comics which is being held under the auspices of the National Union of Teachers. To my mind there is no doubt that the tendency of some of these publications is to deprave and corrupt, but, hitherto, no attempt has been made to apply the test to this class of literature.
Secondly, the test does not constitute sufficient safeguards to reputable publishers and authors, as distinct from mere purveyors of pornography. On strict interpretation it leaves the publisher, in effect, to prove that his publications are suitable reading matter for an innocent schoolgirl. It is true that the more enlightened judges nowadays are careful to tell juries that they must consider the tastes and standards of today in deciding what is likely to deprave and corrupt. In this connection, we had the summing up of Mr. Justice Stable in a recent case, of the prosecution of the publisher of an American novel called "The Philanderer."
On the other hand, some judges still apply the test as if they were living in the times of Chief Justice Cockburn. In a more recent case than that of "The Philanderer" when a well-known publisher was prosecuted, the Recorder directed the jury that
A book which might not affect the mind of an archbishop might affect the mind of a callow youth or a girl just budding into womanhood.

The Cockburn test is purely speculative. It regards neither the author's or the publisher's intention, nor the merit of the work. It is solely concerned with its hypothetical effect on a susceptible reader. Expert literary or scientific evidence is not admissible and this evidence cannot be considered by the magistrate or put to the jury. As long ago as 1908 a Select Committee of both Houses considered the question of indecent literature and recommended that evidence of this kind should be considered in the courts. It might be interesting if the Under-Secretary could tell the House why that recommendation was not followed up.
A more elastic test has been evolved in the American courts. They have discarded the innocent schoolgirl test for some time in favour of a more rational and up-to-date test which considers the dominant effect of the matter complained of.
There are other anomalies in connection with this matter which time only permits me to mention very briefly. Where works are seized under the Act of 1857 the onus is on the occupier or owner of the premises to show cause why the works complained of should not be destroyed. The author and publisher have no right to be heard although, in practice, it is only fair to say that some magistrates make a point of hearing what they have to say.
Secondly, there is no time limit between the date of the publication of the work complained of and subsequent action taken. Works which have circulated freely from a number of years may suddenly become the subject of criminal proceedings through the act of some interfering busybody.
Thirdly, there is no uniformity of penalties or practice; an offence which may cost a bookseller or publisher £10 in. Edinburgh may cost £100 in London and £400 in Lancashire. Also, the publisher and printer are invariably prosecuted, but the author is only sometimes proceeded against, even when he is within the jurisdiction of the court.
Lastly, the Customs can seize allegedly obscene matter and destroy it without having recourse to the courts and without any opportunity being given to the author, publisher, or importer of being heard.
In the field of remedies, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary has stated in this House, on 21st October, that he agrees there are defects in the law and that there are aspects of this matter which concern authors and publishers particularly. The idea of a censorship is generally repugnant to most people in this country. We have not had a censorship of books since the end of the 17th century and there are few people who would like to see it reintroduced today. As an immediate remedial step, I would suggest to my right hon. and gallant Friend that a Departmental committee might be appointed to inquire into the whole subject, similar to that which was recently set up to investigate the problems of homosexuality and prostitution.
My right hon. and gallant Friend might also consider the appointment of a committee of authors and publishers drawn from the Authors' Society and the Publishers' Association, as well as from other trade bodies—particularly those connected with the distribution of literature—to advise him on trends in the publishing and literary world.
I would with respect suggest that the Home Secretary should take some administrative action, which does not, of course, involve the introduction of legislation. In the sphere of horror comics or crime comics I suggest that he might instruct the police to seize some of these publications and so promote a test case to see whether this type of literature can be brought within the test of obscenity—the Cockburn test which I have already mentioned. Under the procedure of the Act of 1857 comics would then be brought before a magistrate who, if he thought fit, would make an order for their destruction. There should then lie an appeal on the point of law involved to a divisional court of the Queen's Bench Division.
Secondly, I suggest that in proceedings under this Act my right hon. and gallant Friend should issue a direction to magistrates that they should always hear what the author and publisher have to say, when they are available, as well as the shopkeeper and retailer who stocks the works complained of. I would also suggest that he issues instructions that no action beyond the stage of seizure by the police should take place without the

consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions being obtained. That would rectify a serious injustice and also bring about a measure of uniformity in this type of proceedings.
These suggested remedies would seem to be the minimum requirements regarding a matter which has considerably disturbed the public conscience and I earnestly commend them to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary.

2.16 a.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: This is a matter of some importance which is causing a great deal of concern, and I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) for raising it even at this hour of the morning.
The hon. and gallant Member put his finger on two points of difficulty, the first being the inadmissibility under the decision as laid down by the Cockburn judgment of the intent of the author. The second, which it is impossible to avoid, is that there is a feeling that there is an unusual discrepancy in the summing-up from some judges. The hon. and gallant Member instanced the judgment of Mr. Justice Stable recently and there is a sharp distinction with some other summings-up of Sir Gerald Dodson in other cases.
The point on which I disagree with the hon. and gallant Member is his suggestion about a Departmental committee. I feel that that might result in the matter being shelved for some time. The experience of the 1908 Joint Committee of the two Houses would not suggest that that was an effective way. Under the auspices of the Society of Authors a fairly representative committee has just been instituted to look into this matter and it is hoped that it will report to the Home Secretary before Christmas.
The Chairman is Sir Alan Herbert and there are a number of publishers and authors as members, including Mr. W. A. R. Collins, Mr. Rupert Hart-Davies, Mr. V. S. Pritchett, Sir Herbert Read and Mr. Walter Allen. I hope that the Home Secretary will bear that in mind in considering the specific suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member.

2.19 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): The House will be grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) for raising this important matter. There are here two interlocking questions. One is the right treatment of obscene publications generally, and the other the right treatment of so-called "horror comics." I think the House will feel that that is not a happy name and know that my right hon. and gallant Friend has indicated that he does not like it. The only other name which I can suggest is "objectionable magazines." I do not think that it is much better, but it avoids the suggestion of comicality.
Both questions are unsuitable for discussion on an Adjournment debate, because the essence of both is whether the present law should be amended. It would be out of order now to discuss an amendment of the law, and I certainly do not propose to try to get round that rule. As I cannot deal with the real issues which are involved, there is some danger perhaps of my giving a false impression in my reply to this debate. It might be thought that I was hiding some unwillingness to take action behind a procedural technicality or even that I was treating lightly what is a very serious matter. I want to say right away, therefore, that this is a very serious question, which raises moral issues, and impinges on what has been called the freedom of the pen, which is one aspect of the freedom of speech generally.
I would, therefore, start by giving the House an explicit assurance that my right hon. and gallant Friend is fully alive to the importance of this question and of the public concern about it. The House will remember that my right hon. and gallant Friend recently received a deputation led by the Archbishop of Canterbury. My right hon. and gallant Friend and the other Ministers concerned are now giving the most careful consideration to this question and in particular to the representations which were made by the Archbishop. A statement will, of course, be made in due course.
May I say something about the general question of obscene publications. First, I should like to point out that the enforce-

ment of the law in this respect, as in other respects, is not a matter for the Home Secretary, who cannot give instructions to anyone with regard to a prosecution. The question of prosecutions is a matter for the chief constables and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Home Secretary cannot even properly express any opinion whether or not a particular publication is an offence. What he can do is to refer particular publications to the Director of Public Prosecutions. For example, the Director of Public Prosecutions has seen a number of these objectionable magazines and he has expressed the view that proceedings in respect of such publications are unlikely to be successful.
If it is desired to take more stringent action or less Stringent action in the courts against any class of publication, then it will be necessary to amend the law. That is a matter with which I cannot deal now and I cannot, therefore, give my hon. and gallant Friend the answers to a great many of the points which he has put.
My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the report of the Joint Select Committee of 1908, and asked why successive Governments have done nothing to implement the recommendations of that Committee. The main recommendation was that there should be power to prosecute summarily in these cases, and that recommendation has already been implemented to a considerable extent by the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, which is now incorporated in the Magistrates Courts Act, 1952. That Act gives power to take these cases summarily, with the consent of the accused.
The second recommendation, to which my hon. Friend principally referred, was in fact one of a somewhat extraordinary kind. The Committee said:
A provision should also be inserted to exempt from the operation of the Act"—
that is, the Act proposed by the Committee—
any book of literary merit or reputation or any genuine work of art. The Committee consider that it would be almost impossible to devise any definition which would cover this exemption.
It went on to suggest that the matter should be left to the discretion of the magistrates. As an expression of ideal opinion, that recommendation was admir-


able and would, I think, be agreed in all parts of the House, but it is equally clear that the Committee itself was quite satisfied that, beyond expressing the ideal, it was unable to suggest any method by which it could be carried out.
I turn now to the problem of these objectionable magazines. The subject was discussed on the Summer Adjournment in 1952, when I answered for the Government. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) asked for a committee to be set up to consider the matter and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Belfast, North has made a similar request. The demand for a commission or committee is often a convenient way of also arguing the desire for legislation. I will not say that that was in my hon. and gallant Friend's mind today; probably he had both thoughts in his mind. I cannot now deal with the legislative aspect, but on the narrow question of the value of a committee I agree with the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). In the present case the facts are known. Any hon. Member who saw the exhibition arranged recently by the National Union of Teachers will have grasped the facts. There is not a great volume of law involved, although the law may not be altogether clear. Public opinion has been fully canvassed.
The circumstances are, therefore, quite different from those surrounding the problem of homosexual offences and prostitution, where there was ample scope for a committee to work. Here there is not. The issues are questions of definition and of procedure, and in the Government's view those are matters which do not lend themselves to investigation by a committee.
The hon. Member for Stechford has told the House of a committee of authors and publishers which has been set up to consider the matter from an expert point of view, and I assure him that if that committee makes recommendations to my right hon. and gallant Friend, he will certainly give them the most careful consideration. Indeed, we should welcome suggestions from them.
I have necessarily dealt somewhat quickly with the many aspects of this broad question. Even if I cannot give a full answer to the points which hon. Members have raised, because of the rules of order, I can assure hon. Members that they will be fully considered by my right hon. and gallant Friend in coming to a conclusion about the appropriate action which should be taken.

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Two o'Clock a.m.